Australian doctors are kept on a short leash. I recently renewed my registration with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). This annual ritual is always interesting.
Like thousands of other doctors, I first had to fill out an online questionnaire. As usual, AHPRA wanted to know if I had a physical or mental impairment, disability, condition or disorder – including substance abuse or dependence – that would detrimentally affect my capacity to work as a doctor. I was reminded that I’m required by law to declare any impairments.
There were questions about criminal records, compliance with the law, continuous professional development, indemnity insurance, work history and immigration status. I was advised that if I did not give the required information, I could lose my registration.
Finally I dutifully transferred the required $724 into AHPRA’s bank account.
High professional standards
The yearly AHPRA registration procedure symbolises the way doctors are controlled in Australia. Contrary to common belief, doctors allowed little freedom.
Before doctors can prescribe certain medications, they have to call Medicare to get approval. Prescribing habits are monitored. Doctors are audited randomly to make sure billing practices are not out of line with peers. They may be prosecuted if there is a deviation from the average. In most states, doctors have to report colleagues who are not performing optimally.
At the same time, professional medical standards in Australia are high. Take the accreditation standards of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, or the CPD requirements. Both quality assurance programs have become more robust over the years and are continuously being reviewed and improved by the College.
QI&CPD programs recognise ongoing education to improve the quality of everyday clinical practice by promoting the development and maintenance of medical skills and lifelong learning.
Is there a problem?
Why is there still talk about revalidation of doctors? Is the public concerned about the quality of Australian doctors?
The national AMA patient survey indicated that GPs are considered by the public to be trustworthy, knowledgeable and experienced. A large patient satisfaction survey endorsed by the RACGP found there was a very high level of satisfaction with General Practice in Australia.
Another study published in the MJA also showed that patients reported high levels of satisfaction with GP care, and for many years Australian doctors have been in the top three most trusted professions in the annual Roy Morgan research.
Based on numbers from Canada, AHPRA estimates that 1.5 per cent of Australian medical practitioners are performing ‘unsatisfactorily’. I’m not sure Canadian figures can be applied to Australia, but 1.5 per cent of unsatisfactory performers in any group is low. It appears that any potential problem lies with a significantly small minority of doctors.
Carpet-bombing the profession
There are many revalidation models – from strengthening CPD to targeting those at high risk of complaints, to the full- bore version rolled out in the UK. But if the AHPRA tries to identify substandard doctors, carpet-bombing the whole profession is problematic.
Dr Steve Wilson, Chair of the AMA (WA) Council of General Practice, questioned in Medicus magazine whether revalidation would address those who failed to practise to agreed levels. And if it did, he asked, would that be a sign of impairment or does it reflect personal style, or lack of time, training, experience or adequate remuneration?
Competency checks of doctors may sound appealing to the public. I’m sure some politicians will love the rhetoric. But simply copying the UK’s revalidation system would be a mistake.
About 5,000 doctors a year are considering leaving the UK, and many come to Australia. Bureaucracy is one reason they emigrate. The last thing we need in Australia is more regulation, red tape and stressed-out doctors.
Existing quality systems
In recent years, our healthcare system has seen several unsuccessful concepts not supported by evidence. Think for example about the super clinics program and some of the accompanying cost blowouts, delays and disappointing results.
It will be easier and cheaper to build on existing quality assurance systems.
This article has previously been published in Medicus, the AMA(WA) magazine.
The Medical Board of Australia could be about to make a costly mistake. Regular testing of competency being introduced is not a matter of if, but when, said the new boss of the NSW Medical Council, Dr Greg Kesby, in an interview with Australian Doctor magazine.Dr Kesby also said there needed to be a process to instil confidence within the community that all doctors’ knowledge was up-to-date.
On the face of it, competency checks of doctors sounds appealing. I’m sure some politicians will love the rhetoric. But at the same time, alarm bells were going off when I read the interview.
Does Dr Kesby imply that the Australian public has lost confidence in its health practitioners? Are there concerns about the quality of Australian healthcare? There are many other unanswered questions too.
Is there any evidence that the current quality assurance systems, such as accreditation and CPD, are insufficient? Is recertification or revalidation — such as has been implemented in the UK — an efficient way to improve the quality of healthcare? Is it possible to design a system that reliably differentiates between good and bad practitioners? And how do we define competency?
Based on numbers from Canada, AHPRA estimates that 1.5% of Australian medical practitioners are performing ‘unsatisfactorily’. I’m not sure Canadian figures can be applied to Australia, but 1.5% of unsatisfactory performers in any group is low. There are numerous models: from strengthening CPD to targeting those at high risk of complaints, to the full-bore version rolled out in the UK. But if the board tries to identify these substandard doctors, carpet-bombing the whole profession is problematic.
One thing is for sure: UK-style revalidation is expensive. The process takes 1-2 working days per practitioner. Imagine thousands of Australian doctors having to take a couple of days off work to fulfil revalidation requirements.
Imagine the enormous effort it will take to manage this process. Think about the additional cost of the training, time and wages of the appraisers — who, I assume, will be doctors too — and the admin staff, extra regulation, log books, documents, IT etc.
According to the UK’s Pulse magazine, the revalidation of doctors has become a colossal enterprise, costing taxpayers £97 million (about $207 million) a year. This figure does not include revalidation of other health practitioners. Critics of the UK system have said it will not detect poor doctors, as its main purpose is to gain patients’ trust. Others feel it mainly serves to demonstrate what good practice looks like.
Policing the profession
A former UK GP-appraiser, now working in Australia, mentioned on the GPs Down Under Facebook group that appraisals used to be fun, interesting and mainly pastoral. Under revalidation, they became a form of policing the profession, he said.
Professor Kerry Breen, adjunct professor in the department of forensic medicine at Monash University, wrote in the Medical Journal of Australia last year that there was little evidence to support the idea of transposing the UK system to Australia.
He said that despite some local failures of medical regulation and hospital governance, the community had not lost faith either in its doctors or regulatory system. Indeed, it appears the public is largely content with its healthcare practitioners: Australian doctors, nurses and pharmacists have been in the top three most trusted professions for many years in the annual Roy Morgan research.
More recently, Dr Steve Wilson, an AMA WA representative, questioned in the AMA’s magazine whether revalidation would be able to address those who failed to practise to agreed levels. And if it did, he asked, would that be a sign of impairment or does it reflect personal style, or a lack of time, training, experience or adequate remuneration?
Don’t follow the UK
About 5000 doctors a year are considering leaving the UK, and many come to Australia. Bureaucracy is one reason they emigrate. Simply copying the UK’s revalidation system would be a big mistake. The last thing we need in Australia is more regulation, red tape and stressed-out doctors.
In recent years, our healthcare system has seen enough unsuccessful concepts not supported by evidence. Think about the super clinics program or the PCEHR, and the accompanying cost blowouts, delays and disappointing results.
It will be easier and cheaper to build on existing quality assurance systems.
Let’s look, for example, at refining CPD and accreditation. As they say, the main difference between a wise man and a fool is that a fool’s mistakes never teach him anything.
Developing an expensive new system with little or no supportive evidence failed in the case of super clinics and e-health, and it will fail with revalidation too.
This article was originally published in Australian Doctor Magazine.
In the ‘Blogging on Demand’ series you get to choose the topic. If you have a great idea you want the world to know about, feel free to contact me. Northern NSW GP and technophile Dr David Guest feels that one particular low-cost health-IT solution from New Zealand, called GP2GP, is worthy of more discussion and would make a big difference in Australia.
I admit it’s odd: Every time a new patient presents, the receptionist will see to it that a huge pile of paper notes ends up on my desk, often held together by paperclips or elastic bands.
I usually move the pile over to one side and look at it for a couple of days to see if the documents will disappear which, so far, hasn’t happened. Then, during a lunch break, I bite the bullet and trawl through the record, under while entering the data into the computer: allergies, medications, history, family history etc.
Important documents are scanned and shredded. When a patient at any stage decides to leave the practice, the receptionist prints the record and faxes it to the next GP. When it’s a large record she will make sure it’s held firmly together by paperclips or an elastic band before it goes to the post office in a big envelope.
Getting computers to solve this problem for us is an issue in Australia, because our IT systems don’t communicate. But in New Zealand and the UK they have found a way to transfer health records electronically. It’s called e-mail. Well, not really, but there are similarities.
Simply put, GP2GP is a software application that securely transfers an electronic health record from one practice to another, and automatically stores information in the relevant sections of a patient’s record.
Dr Guest: “Although I support the PCEHR one cannot help but feel frustrated by the slow pace of change and the limited functionality it provides. In recent times I have become much more interested in simple low-cost achievable IT solutions.”
“It would be great to emulate the UK and NZ ability to transfer medical records from one practice to another. Auto-populating medical lists, health summaries, allergies and vaccinations will save time and reduce medical errors. New Zealand has reportedly done this for less than a million dollars. Given the lack of progress in Australian health IT, it seems a no-brainer to replicate this.”
“Patients have a reasonable expectation and entitlement that information can be easily transferred to their new practice
RACGP e-health spokesperson Dr Nathan Pinskier says: “Australians legitimately change their GP and general practice for a number of reasons, for example because their GP retires, practices merge or people relocate. Approximately 10% of Australians move home each year. Patients have a reasonable expectation and entitlement that personal healthcare information held by their current general practice can be easily transferred to their new practice.”
“Transferring data via a physical medium, like discs and USBs, is problematic as they only work well between compatible systems. The PCEHR allows for the sharing of some clinical documents via a point to share environment, however this requires the patient and both the old and the new general practices to be registered with the PCEHR.”
“Furthermore the documents that may be available for transfer may not always be the information required by the new general practitioner, as documents can be restricted or removed by the consumer. The PCEHR is after all, by definition, the consumer’s personally controlled healthcare record.”
Dr Guest: “The elements enabling this transfer of data already exist in Australian electronic health records software. Most products can export their data in machine readable formats such as XML. They can also import an XML-file produced by their own software from other practices. There needs to be agreement on a standard structure for the XML-data and this is what NZ and the UK have achieved. We should use their format and then enforce it.”
The process of posting paper records and manually entering data is inefficient. Patients First, the New Zealand not-for-profit organisation responsible for introducing GP2GP, states on its website: “This results in a significant safety risk each and every time a person changes their GP.”
Indeed, when doctors or staff enter data manually, there is the potential to make mistakes.
“Having this knowledge at their fingertips will lead to improved clinical decision-making
According to Patients First, there are many benefits:
“With GP2GP, general practitioners will have detailed knowledge of their new patient’s current medication, allergies, current problems and past medical history. Having this knowledge at their fingertips will lead to improved clinical decision-making so that the right care can be provided at the right place and at the right time thus reducing the risk to patient safety during the handover of care.”
Lastly, a benefit that has been claimed is a reduction in the number of duplicate tests.
“The major issue is developing an agreed set of standards for both the content and technical requirements for point to point transfer that can be implemented by any vendor,” says Dr Pinskier. “The RACGP Optimus project has made significant progress in relation to defining the content, however there is no national program to address and fund the technical transfer work.”
Some have argued that there is no business case for software vendors to develop GP2GP in Australia. In New Zealand and the UK the project received Government funding.
The reduction in workload may not be as substantial as we would like. GP Emma Dunning pointed out in New Zealand Doctor Magazine that doctors still need to review the imported data:
“Where I used to be demoralised by the huge pile of paper notes awaiting my attention, I am now demoralised by the stream of tasks on my taskbar, in red, saying ‘GP2GP notes imported, review’. My lightbulb may never be green again!”
A 2011 pilot study from the UK found that the record transfer system was valued, but that there were issues with the quality of the records, which required significant resources to rectify. The New Zealand version also experienced teething problems.
Urgent national priority
Nevertheless, the adoption rate in the UK is 62% (2013), and in New Zealand 93% (2014) with 30,000 transferred records per month.
“I think it is excellent and it saves a lot of time
GP Dr Richard Medlicott, who is a member of several e-health task forces in New Zealand, is content: “Personally I think it is excellent and it saves a lot of time. It’s even better since we increased the file limit from 5 MB to 20 MB. I can’t see any reason you wouldn’t use it.”
According to Dr Pinskier making our systems talk to each other has become an urgent matter: “To support efficient healthcare delivery and continuity of care, we need an agreed mechanism for the safe and efficient transfer of clinical information. One would argue that this is now an urgent national priority.”
It seems GP2GP could be a cost-efficient improvement in Australian healthcare, but the question will be: who pays?
Thanks to Dr David Guest for the topic suggestion.
Wouldn’t it be great if we could spot the bad apples before we consume them? Or even better: before they become bad? In recent years medical regulators around the world have been exploring ways to identify doctors who are performing poorly.
In the UK all apples are tested once a year via a process called revalidation. But some have said it will not detect poor doctors; its main purpose is to gain patients’ trust. Others say it is meant to demonstrate what good apples look like. But one thing is for sure: Revalidation is labour-intensive and expensive.
“There is indeed an additional time cost,” said GP Dr Paresh Dawda in Australian Family Physican. “The appraisal meeting was usually 3 hours in length, and on average it took another 5 or 6 hours to collate the evidence and complete the forms, which is in keeping with an average of 9 hours found in the revalidation pilots.”
Then there are the training, time and wages of the appraisers, usually doctors too, the administrative staff, extra regulation, log books, documents, IT… Revalidation has become an enormous enterprise, costing £97M ($186M) a year, mainly because of added pressures on doctors’ time.
It seems logical that, before a country embarks on an operation like this, the problem it is trying to solve has been defined and the solution is effective.
So what’s the problem?
According to the Medical Board of Australia, evidence from Canada shows that 1.5% of doctors are not good enough. The Board has translated this figure to Australia, and thinks that over 1,350 doctors could be performing unsatisfactorily. Other research indicates that just 3% of doctors are the source of 49% of complaints.
“Where is the evidence that further regulation is needed?
Several safety mechanisms are already in place: At the moment Australian doctors must meet the Medical Board’s mandatory registration standards, including for recency of practice and continuing professional development. Doctors can be subjected to random compliance audits.
Although a majority of Australian doctors seems to support competence checks, there are serious questions about the UK-style revalidation process.
AMA(WA)’s GP Dr Steve Wilson in this blog post: “Where is the evidence that further regulation is needed, which will be preventative and ultimately beneficial to the profession and the community?”
“Will it address those who fail to practise to agreed levels, and is that a sign of ‘impairment’ or more about personal style, lack of time, adequate remuneration, or lack of care, training, experience, sheer demand and workforce numbers?”
At a conference in 2013 Medical Board of Australia Chair, Dr Flynn admitted that ‘the problem that a revalidation-style system would help solve was not yet defined’.
But Dr Flynn questioned the current continuous professional education system: “Can you assure me that everyone who has done your CPD program is actually competent and practising at a reasonable standard? (…) My sense is that, for most CPD programs, they don’t do that, or at least, not to a high enough level of certainty.”
After meeting Dr Flynn in 2013, the RACGP stated in Australian Doctor magazine: “The meeting provided an opportunity for the college to discuss the strength of our current QI & CPD program, and the necessity of adding yet another mechanism to identify underperforming doctors, when processes are already in place – such as the medical boards, health quality and complaints boards and indemnity insurers.”
What’s the Medical Board up to?
“We started a conversation about revalidation in Australia in 2012,” said Dr Joanna Flynn in last week’s media release, “as part of our commitment to making sure doctors in Australia maintain the skills to provide safe and ethical care to patients throughout their working lives.”
The board has asked the University of Plymouth to answer some questions on revalidation. At first glance this seems a sensible approach.
Dr Flynn: “We have commissioned this research to find out what is working well internationally, what is in place in comparable health care systems, and what principles the Board should consider in developing revalidation in Australia. (…) this research will help make sure that the decisions the Board makes in future about revalidation are effective, evidence-based and practical.”
The aim of the project is to:
establish the existing evidence base for the validity of revalidation or similar in countries comparable to Australia
identify best practice and any gaps in knowledge for revalidation processes
establish the validity evidence for revalidation’s effectiveness in supporting safe practice
develop a range of models for the Australian context for the Board to consider.
It seems to me the research questions are broad and several steps are taken at once. For example: ‘Establishing the evidence for revalidation’ and ‘developing a range of revalidation models’ are entirely separate processes.
It appears the Medical Board has already made up its mind. The research findings will be considered by the Board in the second half of 2015. I am certainly looking forward to the results and conclusions, as well details about cost and setup of the study.
The Camera revalidation research website of the University of Plymouth doesn’t give any answers away: “The research team is currently undertaking an ambitious programme of research involving three interlinking studies to explore and understand revalidation in all its complexity.”
Putting the cart before the horse
The question is of course: Is revalidation the right solution? Are there other options? One could argue that this should have been considered before spending tax dollars on an overseas research project.
Professor Breen, from the Department of Forensic Medicine at the Monash University in Melbourne, said in the Medical Journal of Australia: “There is little to support the idea of simply transposing the UK system to Australia. Despite some local failures of medical regulation and hospital governance, there has been no widespread loss of faith of the community either in its doctors or in the regulatory system.”
“Is there a problem with medical registration in Australia that needs attention, and, if so, what should be done to fix the problem?
“The Medical Board of Australia would be wiser to start afresh by asking and answering two questions — namely, is there a problem with medical registration in Australia that needs attention, and, if so, what should be done to fix the problem?
“The medical profession in the UK appears to have accepted revalidation, albeit reluctantly, as representing the price to be paid for maintaining the existence of the GMC and for regaining public trust after a series of regulatory failures.”
“It has been claimed that revalidation will not reliably detect poorly performing doctors, and many commentators have pointed out that revalidation would not have identified Dr Harold Shipman.”
Immediate past president of the AMA, GP Dr Steve Hambleton had second thoughts too. In MJA Insight he said: “We need to make sure we maintain our currency and continue to improve health outcomes, but in terms of value for money, making everybody go through a 5-yearly process of 360-degree evaluation is not needed in the Australian health system.”
Both Professor Breen and Dr Hambleton suggested there are better ways to deal with the bad apples. Database analysis could be one solution. Other options are targeted revalidation and a revamp of the existing CPD program and accreditation. Some have argued that the focus should be on the workplace, not just on health professionals.
Journalist Paul Smith from Australian Doctor magazine was, as usual, spot on when he wrote: “(Doctors) may argue that targeted revalidation has greater merit than what they may see as carpet-bombing the entire profession.”
“Recently I cried at work,” posted Dr Adrienne Garner on the BMA blog. “Why? Because the evening before I’d been notified that my appraisal, submitted after hours of work, had been unsubmitted by my appraiser as it was ‘not sufficient for revalidation.”
“I was gutted. My mind churned with a mixture of thoughts ranging from anger to fear, through frustration and disappointment. Sleep had been impossible.”
“Under revalidation appraisals became a form of policing the profession.
Many studies show that doctors are more likely to experience psychological distress and suicidal thoughts than the general community, and there is a high rate of burnout. Pastoral care and self-reflection are important. But when they are part of a policed regulatory framework, they become a stressor in itself – which defeats the purpose.
Former Coventry GP Dr Gaurev Tewary, now working in Australia, posted on a social media platform: “I was an appraiser in the UK. My overall impression is this: Appraisals used to be fun and interesting and mainly pastoral. You did them to help people and I enjoyed supporting the profession. Under revalidation it became a form of policing the profession.”
About 5,000 doctors a year are considering to leave the UK, and many come to Australia. Bureaucracy is one of the reasons they emigrate. We must become better at dealing with bad apples, but healthcare is already a highly regulated industry and the last thing we need here in Australia is more regulation, red tape and stressed-out doctors.
I hope the Medical Board will work with the colleges and the AMA to explore better options.
The numbers are telling: About 1,500 UK doctors move to Australia and New Zealand each year. This exodus is causing havoc in England. A GP-shortage creates high workloads and overstretched doctors, and a survey showed that over half of UK GPs plan to retire before the age of sixty. This stressful situation has prompted a coming home campaign to entice doctors to go back to the United Kingdom.
Why are doctors leaving, and, will they move back to save the NHS?
Dr Nathalie Departe is a UK-trained GP working in Fremantle, Western Australia. “I moved to Australia in 2009 for a change of scenery. I had visited Australia before and loved it, so when my husband found himself in a career hiatus, we thought we would enjoy the sunshine for a few years.”
“Working in Australia was a breath of fresh air. Patients were pleased to see me, understanding if I ran late, and I was rewarded and not penalised if I spent time with a complex patient to sort out their management. Access to pathology and radiology services was prompt, rather than a standard 6-8 week wait for an ultrasound, and access to allied health services didn’t compare – good luck trying to see a clinical psychologist on the NHS.”
“Initially it was a bit odd to bill patients and not provide free care at the point of need, but I soon came to value the transparency of the transaction. The integration between private and public care makes private care accessible and affordable in Australia, rather than in the UK where private care has to be funded in full.”
Escaping the NHS
“In Australia I can arrange imaging quickly, receive the results the next day and organise appropriate and timely care
Dr Janaka Pieris moved to Brisbane in 2010 to ‘escape’ the NHS: “When I think back to my working life as a GP in South East London, I have two overriding memories: there was never enough time in the day to do the work asked of me, and there was no means of limiting my workload. NHS General Practice is a sink for everything no-one else will take responsibility for. Many GPs feel unable to decline these demands – many of which are not NHS work and therefore unfunded – and as a result, are drowning in work.”
“When a patient presents with painless obstructive jaundice in the UK, I have no option but to refer in to hospital, because I have no access to appropriate imaging, or I cannot get it done in a timely fashion. In Australia I can arrange the imaging quickly, receive the results the next day, discuss the case with a specialist and organise appropriate and timely care. It is much more satisfying from a professional perspective.”
Dr Tim Leeuwenburg made the move in 1999, immediately after his internship in the UK. He is now a GP at Kangaroo Island in South Australia. “I was married to an Aussie and always knew I’d be coming to Australia for love and a better lifestyle.”
“That was 15 years ago. Since then I’ve vicariously witnessed the demise of UK medicine – and am anxious that Australia doesn’t make the same mistakes: Other professions trying to do doctors’ work, capitation and performance payments, privatisation, walk-in clinics, phone advice lines, revalidation. They are all seemingly good ideas, but not evidence-based and all have served to emasculate the profession and increase the number of doctors seeking to retire, locum or emigrate from the cesspit that is the NHS. None of these measures have reduced costs or increased quality.”
“The myth of the ‘fat cat’ wealthy GP laughingly enjoying his round of golf whilst poor patients helplessly waited for his attentions was regularly portrayed in the media
Departe: “Despite working in a nice area and enjoying my job, I had a growing sense of unease with the way UK general practice was going. There seemed to be ever changing targets to qualify for practice payments with increased red tape and less time for consultations.”
“There was a general loss of respect for the role of a GP; it was not unusual for patients to demand medication, tests and home visits inappropriately, then to be outraged if you questioned the need for it. The myth of the ‘fat cat’ wealthy GP laughingly enjoying his round of golf whilst poor patients helplessly waited for his attentions was regularly portrayed in the media, and I felt that general practice was being devalued in the eyes of public and politicians alike.”
Dr Mark McCartney left the UK in 2013 because he was not happy with the working conditions in the NHS, but moved back to England after 12 months because of family circumstances. “There is a huge cultural difference in Australia, where there is a mixed health economy of private and state-subsidised services. The NHS is free at the point of access for patients, and service always struggles to meet the demand and prioritise appropriately. UK hospitals are dysfunctional places and the effects of this trickle into General Practice.”
“UK GPs are mostly paid on the basis of capitation payments depending on the number of patients registered, with additional payments for reaching clinical targets and a small amount of fee for service payments. There is now a shortage of GPs and we work in an environment of running faster and harder just to meet demands, without additional incentives or resources.”
“Australian GPs have the luxury of earning a high proportion of income from fee-for-service payments, including patient fees and Medicare payments. The more patients they see and the more services they provide, the more they earn. Clinical practice is also more interesting with rapid access to x-rays and scans. It is a professionally motivating environment to work in.”
Would you move back to the UK?
Dr Pieris is sceptical about the fully funded induction and returner scheme: “Firstly, it is manifestly insulting to suggest that doctors who have worked in similar systems, such as Australia, need retraining to work in UK general practice. I do more medicine in Australia than ever I did in the UK.”
“Secondly, if people are leaving because of a failed system, a sensible approach would be address those failings, not try to tempt people back into the same environment they left.”
“To return would require most GPs to undertake 6-12 months of supervised training, and to surrender to ridiculous bureaucratic imposts
Departe: “Why would I return to a role where I am restricted in my clinical practice by financial constraints, strangled by paperwork, stressed out by time pressures, undervalued by patients and politicians and where I would earn less money for more work and more stress?”
“To return would require most GPs to undertake 6-12 months of supervised training, and to surrender to ridiculous bureaucratic imposts,” says Leeuwenburg. “The reason doctors are leaving the NHS is because of unfettered demand from patient ‘wants’ not ‘needs’, and reduced income as a result of capitation. Why on earth would you go back?”
McCartney: “Very few GPs will return, unless they have personal or family reasons. UK GPs are retiring early, but this does not seem to be the case in Australia. There are also huge barriers to doctors wishing to move back to the UK in terms of medical registration and licensing to practice. The NHS is wasting resources trying to recruit in Australia and they look foolish because of that.”
“My message for governments,” says Departe, “would be Stop undervaluing good general practice! Good general practice has been proven to provide better value for money and a more integrated care approach than secondary care. By all means, regulate general practice to maintain appropriate standards of care but then pay us accordingly and let us get on with being general practitioners.”
Leeuwenburg: “Listen to grassroots doctors, not NHS managers who have destroyed the NHS and are now sprucing their wares in Australia. Nor to academics who think things like capitation and revalidation are necessary. Our Australian system is marvelous and we should be proud. Sure, there is fat in the health system that could be trimmed, mostly in hospitals and specialists, but primary care is overall incredibly efficient and GPs do a great job.”
“The UK government needs to stop attacking GPs and listen to doctors and the BMA, who have been largely ignored for the last ten years
“Ofcourse there are some outliers, but there are many more who are hard working and ethical, doing the right thing for patients and Medicare. Alienate GPs and risk the collapse of a great primary care system. It will cost more if we surrender to the failed experiments of the UK or privatise us with private health funds.”
“The UK government needs to stop attacking GPs and listen to doctors and the BMA, who have been largely ignored for the last ten years,” says McCartney. “Doctors want to work in an effective service so that they can focus on caring for patients. Learn from Australia that good access to radiology for GPs can keep people away from hospital until they really need to be there.”
Pieris: “The UK Government should let us do our jobs. Trust us. Stop interfering. No-one is saying regulation and scrutiny are not required. However, GPs are not some malign enemy. Stop treating us as if we are.”
Recommended further reading: Doctors from overseas, about my experiences as as a Dutch doctors starting Australia.