The Telegraph today reports on a survey showing that many GP practices are giving receptionists the task of evaluating patients’ conditions and prioritizing their appointments, while doctors ‘said they were wasting too much of their time seeing patients who did not need to visit the doctor at all’.
In what universe does this constitute ‘news’ worthy of surprise? How are these ‘new findings’? I don’t remember a time when practice receptionists weren’t used by GPs as a defence system, and thus made decisions about who was allocated which appointment, and I’ve never been a patient at a practice where it wasn’t the adopted routine. The astonishing aspect is that there are supposedly eight-seven per cent of surgeries where this isn’t the system in operation.
GPs are undoubtedly wasting much time seeing patients who don’t need to be seen, but my own experience shows this is partly their own fault. The practice I am currently registered with has a website containing a captioned photograph of the partners and a link to the supposedly time-saving, automated EMIS service. This is in theory an excellent system; but the last time I tried to make an appointment through it, there were no appointments listed for my surgery after the Friday of that same week (when, of course, there were none free), because ― it transpired ― the surgery’s diary, and thus EMIS, hadn’t yet been updated with doctors’ and nurses’ hours… There is no information whatsoever on the website advising patients how to decide whether they need an appointment, or suggresting where else they might obtain advice, or supplying the dates of routine clinics, or showing when periodical clinics, such as annual flu jab clinics, are to be held and when and how appointments can be made for them. Online provision of this kind of information by all general practices should be fundamental and routine, and cannot help but alleviate pressure on staff, whether medical, nursing or administrative. The information might usefully be displayed in the practice waiting-room too; needless to say, it isn't.
I attended the surgery recently to collect a repeat prescription and asked whether I could order a blood test form for a routine, annual diabetes check. The form, which has to be authorized by a doctor, could be completed at a time convenient to the GP, and I could collect it when it was ready. I even mentioned what a waste of the GP’s time (and mine) it would be to allocate an appointment for this. The receptionist didn’t seem to understand what I wanted, however, and sent a query through to one of the doctors, making me wait while she laboriously typed it into the system; another administrator from the practice rang me later with a response that made no mention of the blood test at all! I eventually had to make an appointment to see a GP merely to have him prepare a form for a routine diabetes test ― after wasting a good deal of my time trying not to waste his.
GPs seem to spend much time these days insisting patients are wasting their time; but, with an extraordinary absence of empathy, they seem unable to appreciate that patients, being untrained, cannot confidently identify the conditions and circumstances that require intervention by medically trained personnel. The public is, furthermore, given conflicting information. A recent television campaign advises people to visit a doctor with some urgency if they have had a cough for more than three weeks, in case the cough is a symptom of cancer. Since the campaign began, four people have told me that they have followed this advice, but, instead of being thoroughly and reassuringly examined, have been sent away with only a strong sense of having made a fuss about nothing…
It’s up to the practice, and ultimately the GPs, to decide on the nature and quantity of both the information available at the surgery (including online data) and the training given to reception and other administrative staff so they can respond adequately to queries, direct patients appropriately, and prevent doctors’ time being wasted. If the practice’s information and systems are inadequate, patients cannot help but waste doctors’ time ― and their own, which doctors arrogantly seem not to consider.
What’s that saying about physicians healing themselves?
In what universe does this constitute ‘news’ worthy of surprise? How are these ‘new findings’? I don’t remember a time when practice receptionists weren’t used by GPs as a defence system, and thus made decisions about who was allocated which appointment, and I’ve never been a patient at a practice where it wasn’t the adopted routine. The astonishing aspect is that there are supposedly eight-seven per cent of surgeries where this isn’t the system in operation.
GPs are undoubtedly wasting much time seeing patients who don’t need to be seen, but my own experience shows this is partly their own fault. The practice I am currently registered with has a website containing a captioned photograph of the partners and a link to the supposedly time-saving, automated EMIS service. This is in theory an excellent system; but the last time I tried to make an appointment through it, there were no appointments listed for my surgery after the Friday of that same week (when, of course, there were none free), because ― it transpired ― the surgery’s diary, and thus EMIS, hadn’t yet been updated with doctors’ and nurses’ hours… There is no information whatsoever on the website advising patients how to decide whether they need an appointment, or suggresting where else they might obtain advice, or supplying the dates of routine clinics, or showing when periodical clinics, such as annual flu jab clinics, are to be held and when and how appointments can be made for them. Online provision of this kind of information by all general practices should be fundamental and routine, and cannot help but alleviate pressure on staff, whether medical, nursing or administrative. The information might usefully be displayed in the practice waiting-room too; needless to say, it isn't.
I attended the surgery recently to collect a repeat prescription and asked whether I could order a blood test form for a routine, annual diabetes check. The form, which has to be authorized by a doctor, could be completed at a time convenient to the GP, and I could collect it when it was ready. I even mentioned what a waste of the GP’s time (and mine) it would be to allocate an appointment for this. The receptionist didn’t seem to understand what I wanted, however, and sent a query through to one of the doctors, making me wait while she laboriously typed it into the system; another administrator from the practice rang me later with a response that made no mention of the blood test at all! I eventually had to make an appointment to see a GP merely to have him prepare a form for a routine diabetes test ― after wasting a good deal of my time trying not to waste his.
GPs seem to spend much time these days insisting patients are wasting their time; but, with an extraordinary absence of empathy, they seem unable to appreciate that patients, being untrained, cannot confidently identify the conditions and circumstances that require intervention by medically trained personnel. The public is, furthermore, given conflicting information. A recent television campaign advises people to visit a doctor with some urgency if they have had a cough for more than three weeks, in case the cough is a symptom of cancer. Since the campaign began, four people have told me that they have followed this advice, but, instead of being thoroughly and reassuringly examined, have been sent away with only a strong sense of having made a fuss about nothing…
It’s up to the practice, and ultimately the GPs, to decide on the nature and quantity of both the information available at the surgery (including online data) and the training given to reception and other administrative staff so they can respond adequately to queries, direct patients appropriately, and prevent doctors’ time being wasted. If the practice’s information and systems are inadequate, patients cannot help but waste doctors’ time ― and their own, which doctors arrogantly seem not to consider.
What’s that saying about physicians healing themselves?
