Join TSR now for chat about life, relationships, fashion and more…Sign up now

My G.P is dangerously useless Watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    The process of suing takes incredible ammounts of effort and energy - something most people do not have. Eitherway, i know in their hearts the doctors did not intend to do wrong , they do care, but it was negligence.


    Furthermore, most doctor are absolutely competent, but your statement should not encompass all doctors. Many are struck-off every year, proving my point that there can be very negligent and un-safe doctors. Many misdiagnose due to negligence on top of that.

    So doctors need to be more accountable, and i support any reforms - and there are many- to re-test doctors and make them much more accountable.
    Well, suing doctors is pretty easy. Legal firms do it on a regular process. IF you have an actual case, then you could do fairly little.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Well, suing doctors is pretty easy. Legal firms do it on a regular process. IF you have an actual case, then you could do fairly little.
    The cost, energy, will ect for many makes it not worth it. There was no malice in what the doctors have done just negligence. Sometimes you just want to move on and get on with life, without this added burden.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    NOTE: I HAVE IMMENSE RESPECT FOR DOCTORS - THE ONES THAT DO IT RIGHT. I FEEL WE SHOULD HOLD DOCTORS ACCOUNTABLE AND NOT TAKE THEIR WORD AS ABSOLUTE TRUTH. MY CONCERNS ARE ALSO RE EXPRESSED BY HEALTH-CARE GOVERNING BODIES, BBC DOCUMENTARIES, AND INNUMERABLE UNSATISFIED PATIENTS.

    So many G.P's i have seen are literally useless. I have a place at medical school and i have tried to do indepth study of what a doctor does, and i just can not fathom what on earth G.P's actually learn.

    I have been misdiagnoised so many times.

    The G.P's answer to every ilness is 'anti-biotics' or 'anxiety', which led to a gross misdiagnosis for me.

    I was diagnosed with a condition which the G.P's should have known about, and they had no idea. I may as well tell it to you: SVT, POTS, and a few other ilnesses. They had no idea, were rude to me, misdiagnosed me ect

    I asked them "What is SVT"?
    They STILL did not know what that meant!(they only told me they saw cases of it before, but could not tell me what it was? )The consultants offered me no support whatsoever, gave me a medication and said 'use it'.

    I am hopefully going to become a doctor,but i must say, 80% of doctors i have seen especially G.P's could have had their job done by a farmer.

    All they do is check for the obvious signs, give you anti-biotics no matter what, and then keep you like that and refer you if you get worse. So much for skill?

    Is there an organisation i can see to anonymously report G.P surgeries ? Do these G.P's actually get trained properly ? Do we expect G.P's to know too little about too much?

    I've always wanted to be G.P as i wanted to really learn about a myriad of ilnesses, be more community based, forge long-term relationships with my patients, and the more balanced working hours was attractive as well.

    But my own personal experiences of G.P's as well as a lot of witness statements from my own friends has led me to feel -atleast in my view- it's definitely leaves much to be desired. but i am totally put of. I want to go into medicine to give people answers, to be useful, and i don't think handing out anti-biotics all the time is a good use of my life.

    I hope to make money and go private.(as in, pay for my own private doctor as they probably care more (Or have to care/be competent as i'm paying them!).

    Seriously, it's one big joke.


    GP misses signs of cancer in Dispatches investigation

    2 Oct 2011 00:00
    A DOCTOR told a “patient” with classic signs of bowel cancer he had constipation and said: “Get yourself some mangoes.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrit...spatches-82596

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...-watchdog.html

    Are you insinuating that a doctor can do a farmer's job?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    The cost, energy, will ect for many makes it not worth it. There was no malice in what the doctors have done just negligence. Sometimes you just want to move on and get on with life, without this added burden.
    If you really think your GP was negligent you should report them to the GMC and have them investigate.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by gateshipone)
    If you really think your GP was negligent you should report them to the GMC and have them investigate.
    that isn't the first step. first step is to send a letter of complaint detail the issues to the gp practice or the PCT.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    that isn't the first step. first step is to send a letter of complaint detail the issues to the gp practice or the PCT.
    PCT, what's that?

    Seriously though, what would he do now?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mushi_master)
    No, in fact I believe you just want me to agree to some very flimsy anecdotal evidence. A GP does not have to be a specialist - they are medical doctors with a huge wealth of experience and training, don't insult the profession by stating they wouldn't know if something was serious. Without you having knowledge of any actual medicine I'm afraid you are in no position to state whether people have been 'diagnosed properly' or not.
    It's exactly that sort of attitude that necessitates a closer look.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Coffinman)
    It's exactly that sort of attitude that necessitates a closer look.
    The attitude not to rely on anecdotal evidence, that GPs have a wide knowledge base and that lay people don't have the training to accurately make a definitive diagnosis?

    Sure, this is exactly the kind of attitude that we should question.

    Moron.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    You're implying the public are stupid and doctors can never make mistakes or overlook something.
    That's not very nice is it?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Coffinman)
    You're implying the public are stupid and doctors can never make mistakes or overlook something.
    That's not very nice is it?
    No he's implying you have no right to comment on a 'correct diagnosis' until you know what that entails, just as I have no right to comment on what would makes a good nuclear reactor since I have no ****ing education on the matter.

    And a large proportion of the public are very, very thick. That's not an insult aimed at anyone, just an observation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    ofcourse. I just feel the G.P's i have seen (most) are utterly useless. If you ask a G.P so i was diagnoised with super ventricular tychardia, what's that?

    and they say they don't know. It really gives you confidence.
    Wow, I'm a medical student and we learned about superventricular tachycardia in first year!!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kaiaaa)
    Wow, I'm a medical student and we learned about superventricular tachycardia in first year!!
    I'd suggest getting the name correct, then. Supraventricular, as it does not originate from a ventricle but from above the atrioventricular node.

    A lot of GPs don't perform ECGs in the surgery and if they suspect a heart issue they'll refer you. Again this depends on severity, budgetary constraints, differential diagnoses. Until you ask the specific GP why they didn't refer it's pointless speculating.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kaiaaa)
    Wow, I'm a medical student and we learned about superventricular tachycardia in first year!!
    Indeed.

    After this paticular G.P office kindly fills in my health forms , i am moving, and then reporting them to the quality care commission anonymously.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    I'd suggest getting the name correct, then. Supraventricular, as it does not originate from a ventricle but from above the atrioventricular node.

    A lot of GPs don't perform ECGs in the surgery and if they suspect a heart issue they'll refer you. Again this depends on severity, budgetary constraints, differential diagnoses. Until you ask the specific GP why they didn't refer it's pointless speculating.
    Ahh, i always seemed to read it as super ventricular. That's very interesting though, thanks for sharing!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mushi_master)
    The attitude not to rely on anecdotal evidence, that GPs have a wide knowledge base and that lay people don't have the training to accurately make a definitive diagnosis?

    Sure, this is exactly the kind of attitude that we should question.

    Moron.
    Actually, the issue is more complex. Even Quality Care Commisions and other influential health boards are pushing for a testing of doctors periodically. Would they do that if they felt all doctors were so competent ?

    It is much more than one or two stories from patients. There are many anecdotal and undercover evidences that clearly show a problem - even if it's a minority.

    G.P's on the whole are good, as are doctors, but many are struck of each year ect. A minority of incompetence - undeeded incompetence that can be avoided- is a minority too far.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MENDACIUM)
    Actually, the issue is more complex. Even Quality Care Commisions and other influential health boards are pushing for a testing of doctors periodically. Would they do that if they felt all doctors were so competent ?
    Until you have a statistic to show widespread incompetence or negligence you're just speculating. Doctors are competent because they are trained extensively. Do you advocate regular testing for every single profession? What about architects? Engineers?

    It is much more than one or two stories from patients. There are many anecdotal and undercover evidences that clearly show a problem - even if it's a minority.
    It is anecdotal until you provide statistical evidence.

    G.P's on the whole are good, as are doctors, but many are struck of each year ect. A minority of incompetence - undeeded incompetence that can be avoided- is a minority too far.
    But you are yet to quantify any numbers, so how can you say something is too widespread? It is not possible to have a completely error-free system in medicine, nor is it affordable. All we can do is aim to treat people as best as possible at the given moment, and aim to reduce disease occurrance through prevention.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    Until you have a statistic to show widespread incompetence or negligence you're just speculating. Doctors are competent because they are trained extensively. Do you advocate regular testing for every single profession? What about architects? Engineers?



    It is anecdotal until you provide statistical evidence.



    But you are yet to quantify any numbers, so how can you say something is too widespread? It is not possible to have a completely error-free system in medicine, nor is it affordable. All we can do is aim to treat people as best as possible at the given moment, and aim to reduce disease occurrance through prevention.
    We are not talking about mistakes out the nature of reality, human beings, and the difficulties in diagnosis. We are talking about gross negligence in behavior, understanding, and treatment. Again this is for a minority of doctors.

    A good example is this:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...n-8514576.html

    An entire hospital of doctors, nurses and medical proffesionals.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20869560

    In the last five years, 670 doctors have been struck-off.

    Many have been incompetent and not struck off, but 670 have warranted serious enough concern to be struck off.

    If we think about how many patients a doctor see's, we can then see a very large number of patients circulated through these doctors.

    This issue has been taken up by even the most senior of health boards and commissions I am not advocating a re-testing of Doctors - they are, and i am sure they must have sufficient evidence to even warrant any concern.

    http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/one-in-s...e#.UWbIhLV3Zy0

    Again, one in seven G.P's were told they may have to under go re-training.

    But i do see your views. I was too imbalanced in my original post, and i appreciate your criticisms as they acted as a very good counter balance, but medicine is an ever advancing and evolving field. We don't retest engineers and such because the nature of how each proffesional works is inherently different. An engineer often works in teams on a particular project, and often has to continually justify one project and often spends a lot of time on one project. Doctors see many patients, they work in a team but have very powerful decision making skills. Doctors also deal with life and death, or at least quality of life. I understand mistakes, but laziness, inability to keep up to date with knowledge, patronizing patients, rudeness, incompetence, ect should not be tolerated.

    Your knowledge of medicine is excellent by the way(i.e scientific and clinical). I hope to aspire to similar levels, and i admit i have a lot to learn.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Well, suing doctors is pretty easy. Legal firms do it on a regular process. IF you have an actual case, then you could do fairly little.
    Legal firms also like easy cases first and foremost.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    No he's implying you have no right to comment on a 'correct diagnosis' until you know what that entails, just as I have no right to comment on what would makes a good nuclear reactor since I have no ****ing education on the matter.
    I'm sure if you needed to be informed or criticize the workings of one or the politics behind it you could do some research.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It seems you vastly underestimate just how much there is to learn about the Human Body i mean geeze a GP is jut that a "General" practitioner.

    When you have people who spend twenty years just researching one organ and still don't consider themselves all knowing on the subject and need to refer to colleagues in certain cases, you can be forgiven that your local over-worked under-paid GP can't encyclopedicly tell you what's wrong with you every time.
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 5, 2014
Poll
Should MenACWY vaccination be compulsory at uni?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.