Go Alex.    The sleeping giant awakes.  Well written.

 


From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alex
Sent: Thursday, 10 August 2006 7:37 AM
To: General Practice Computing Group Talk
Subject: Re: [GPCG_TALK] Way cleared for electronic scripts

 

This is the contents of an email sent to the accrediting agency following an "accreditation" visit 2 weeks ago. I will never take part in the process again.

 

I am writing to advise you of my complete disgust at the

accreditation visit yesterday at the practice where I now work as a

contractor.

 

I cannot recall feeling so degraded in my own place of work, so

prostituted in the course of of my daily duties as I felt during the

"doctor" interview yesterday.

 

It was my own doing to the extent that I should never have allowed

the interview to take place. However, as the senior doctor and former

owner of the practice, I felt some obligation to assist the new

owners in gaining access the PIP. This, to my observation, is about

the only value now left in a process which is so distorted from my

understanding of its original intent as to be unrecognisable.

 

I object in principle to a process whereby an organisation purporting

to accredit the facilities of a practice thinks it has the right to

intrude into matters which are not of its business. The manner in

which I conduct my medical practice is the business of my college,

ACRRM, the Medical Board of Queensland, Medicare Australia as the

funding agency and my patients. It has absolutely nothing to do with

anybody else.

 

I suppose I am most upset at allowing my principles to be so

compromised; it won't happen again.

 

Specifically:

 

1) When it was made clear that I found the questions inappropriate

and offensive, your accreditor offered only the option of penalising

the practice by failing its accreditation; this to me was nothing

short of coercion and his questions were answered under duress

2) Your accreditor, was in my view, completely insensitive to the

ethical dilemma in which I found myself

3) Your accreditor presumed he had the right to instruct me in the

manner in which I conduct my practice notwithstanding that he is not

a member of my college, notwithstanding that I had already made it

clear to him that I found this intrusion into the manner of my

practice unethical.

4) Your accreditor assumed he had the right to trawl through the

medical records of my patients but I do not recall giving my consent,

nor were my patients consulted for their consent.

 

None of the above is required to establish whether or not a practice

is providing the facilities for the practice of quality medical care.

The quality of delivery of medical care is not the business of

facility accreditors.

 

Nowhere have I seen evidence that the absurd level of proscriptive

activity now apparently required of this accredititation process has

made one iota of difference to patient outcomes. I have today been

forced to advise staff to "undo" several absurd instructions, the

consequences of which "appeared" following the "accreditation" visit.

These changes would have compromised the safe and efficient delivery

of care to my patients in our surgery and I am not prepared to

compromise the care of my patients simply because someone visiting

our practice for half a day insists that he knows better than we do

how our systems operate within our practice.

 

I believe that accreditation as it is now and the RACGP are

fundamental components of the dumbing-down and de-professionalisation

of general medical practice. I choose not to be a party to this.

 

I therefore withdraw my consent to participate in the process. My

name is to be removed from all documentation associated with the

"accreditation" which took place yesterday. All consent to access

information pertaining to my professional activity with my patients

is withdrawn.

 

Please take whatever action is required to achieve the above; I would

appreciate your advice that this has been carried out.

 

Alex

 

 

Dr Alexander G Bennett

Pomona Qld 4568

Australia

 

 



 

On 09/08/2006, at 11:31 PM, Wal Tracey wrote:



If the College, ADGP, Divisions took the time to talk to GPs they would find that the views expressed by Richard & myself and those of Alex and Horst ( the Death of Individual Responsibility) regarding Divisions Accreditation etc are commonplace.

We too were close to telling AGPAL to bugger off this time but relented. After our impending accreditation we will not be lining up again.

 

 

_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk

Reply via email to