If not still novice at 5 years, why is training minimum 7 years? And see new RCPCH training curriculum, formalises more structured approach to competencies. Dr BG was only just started in what now the final 3-year stage, and still had long way to go https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/education/training/rcpch-progress-curriculum …
-
-
Replying to @Cjw450Cathy @katemasters67 and
I don't know why 7y. In Australia, you'd suspect it's empire building and to limit competition. Dr
#bawagarba also had a science degree. The manslaughter failings: ? a week to master, 6 months to recognise/see enough blue comatose children? If 5y is worthless, ok.2 replies 3 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rwade300 @katemasters67 and
We‘re talking re in situation with little senior professional support to deal w extreme complexities. Had little Jack been one of only 5 or even 10 children in her care, all in same place, could well have been different outcome. But complexity is hard bit and why 7yrs not just 5
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Cjw450Cathy @katemasters67 and
If you're talking
#BawaGarba what is it about that woman consultant who went to Dr BG 3 times that her skills are ignored? Is it that only a male is worth consulting, only a man can rescue the mess the women are in? Too busy? Even Dr BG didn't claim that.1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
-
Replying to @Cjw450Cathy @rwade300 and
If - as a GP - I knowingly left an agency nurse and a (just back from mat leave) junior doctor in charge, covering double the usual workload, and relying on a broken computer, it’d be *me* done for manslaughter. I suspect this is as it should be.
3 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @DrAnneMurphy @Cjw450Cathy and
FWIW I actually agree with
@C7RKY that blanket exempting doctors from GNM (or any other part of the law, tbh) would be a really dangerous step. But I think there is probably useful work to do - eg round shared responsibilities, CPS guidance and how courts treat expert evidence.2 replies 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DrAnneMurphy @rwade300 and
Absolutely. I think
@C7RKY is right on that, but that he has also taken too far his interpretations of what Drs are saying about GNM law... I don’t think many are calling for complete abolition, but a review of how the law is interpreted and clarification about the wording of law1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Cjw450Cathy @DrAnneMurphy and
BTW
@C7RKY won’t see that as he’s blocked me1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Cjw450Cathy @rwade300 and
That's a great shame, and makes the threads very disjointed. I'm blocked by one or two respected colleagues and it does cause confusion.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
It makes it no less disjointed for me too for what that's worth. But having been accused of -pre-existing bias -being dangerous as a result -being neither external nor impartial -being 'the respectable face of popularism' (with a warning to beware) ..among others. I drew the line
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.