Yes, justice is served. Because a jury of people who exist outside of the medical bubble - just like me - judged her guilty, despite all that was going on around her, of being grossly negligent. 'In all the circumstances'. It bothers me that doctors dismiss that fact so easily.
Now that makes far more sense to me. The emotional reaction has been impossible to ignore, so there's no denying it. I just happen to think those behind the scenes backed the wrong poster child for the cause and have allowed the cause to become far too protectionist in its focus.
-
-
Increasing evidence that Revalidation and appraisal have made little/no difference to safety, no additional ‘unsafe’ Drs found vs pre-Revalidation despite huge financial cost to implement, and personal cost re: added workload for individual Drs
-
No additional benefit to safety and distracts from patient care. It's created a huge industry in selling appraisals to doctors at more than £600 a pop and over £1500 for revalidation for no discernible gain.
-
Doesn't sound like the sort of evidence-based intervention we've been led to believe underpins the medical world's every undertaking, does it? But somebody's making money...
-
Exactly. There are many things in healthcare, as in many walks of life, that are not evidence-based.
-
But because of the EBM wave that has overtaken medical culture it is no longer safe to admit it
even harder to prove against it because have to admit there was no evidencein 1st place, which nobody wants to admit...and round and round it goes. -
What’s wrong with trialing something that makes sense and seeing if it works, then accepting if it doesn’t and moving on? SHAME and fear of failure is what’s wrong
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Similarly, strong feeling amongst Drs that GMC chose the wrong poster child to challenge their own FTP panel’s decision, big clue why such big reaction to particular case. GMC have enforced a lot of harmful or dubious policies to huge expense financially and to the profession.
-
GMC are not my friend, believe me. But in this I think they were right. It wasn't about her, it was about the GNM charge and the effect on public confidence in the medical profession. And I agree with them. I think our confidence remains untested and has been 'assumed' via MPTS.
-
On that we will have to disagree, as did the Court of Appeals
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sometimes our personal opinions of a specific situation/event stop us trying to understand why others react so differently, stop us seeing common ground that is far more important than tribal beliefs. I think Brexit, Scottish Independence, and many others are similar
-
I've been trying to understand the reaction for a while now. Your tweet about it being a wider issue is the most plausible comment I've seen on the subject in a while. I've not found it easy to see justification for much of it in the way it's been packaged. But I've been trying.
-
It is very difficult to see it from outside the profession and the circle of effect. It’s a bit like the difference between higher management and the shop floor- the differences between ‘work-as-imagined’ and ‘Work-as-done’.
-
Have to rely on what information is visible, hear say or ‘reports’, what is disclosed and large helpings of assumption to fill the gaps.
-
Have you seen this before- insightful in many ways, and makes you stop and think where you are in the map and where your information comes from...https://humanisticsystems.com/2016/12/05/the-varieties-of-human-work/ …
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.