@TheEMboardround They shouldn’t be speaking to ITU/RESPECT discussion, they should be speaking to their reg for a review.
This is a failure of supervision if there was no review by seniors
@cochranereturns@DoctorsVoteUK … the “taxpayer subsidy” is nowhere near what you think it is.
With student loans and their repayment, the govt often ends up making money in absolute terms from training doctors.
I personally don’t count govt funding to the NHS via medical schools asa taxpayer cost…
@DrNoOneSpecial@dru_jlh Arguably, I suspect this will be the last surgery done by ACPs. 1) patients are awake and really care who does the surgery. 2) decision for section are purely medical. 3) litigation rate over sections (and the decision for) are super expensive - you need the risk sponges!
@m1258fhaa66 @DrLukeCraddock … medics would also pay those taxes?
Why not also Support non-NHS doc jobs then? The NHS isn’t a public service at that level, it’s a monopoly
@DrMohitBhagia I think an inclusion of minimum time in the NHS as part of the minimum spec for jobs would work. 2 years for Core training, 4-5 for reg posts.
FY1 posts should only be offered to doctors with provisional registration, few F2 jobs.
Simple, elegant and non discriminatory.
@donesdg@DrHuw@RCoANews@nhsuhcw It’s done routinely, on the 9-5 part of the “on call” rota, on a site where there is no emergency list. No AAs outside of normal working hours (that I know of), so a cons is always present.
So it isn’t done due to exceptional circumstances.
@maffygirl The same as blood is Jehovah witness, give them as much info as possible to make an informed choice, then let them make that choice.
In emergencies, best interests will take place.
The only issue I can think of would be GA in a pt with MH…