Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Has anyone else had problems getting through to the new Tessa Jowell GP Surgery? I have called endlessly for days now to make an appointment. You are greeted by an answer machine that implies you are in a queue and then after a while it just disconnects.


Has anyone else got a number or is anyone from the Surgery on here that can advise? I would rather not go to the surgery due to current risks unless I absolutely have to and frankly a working telephone system is not much to ask for from a surgery!

On twitter they said on June 19 there was a problem with the phone lines



"Hi, we've been made aware by Tessa Jowell Health Centre there may have been problems with the phonelines. Huge apologies for this. Please do try again, or use http://tessajowellgpsurgery.co.uk to contact us via eConsult, or [email protected] for email"

Have been having trouble with my surgery. Rambling recorded announcement, repeats itself and mostly bl**ding obvious. Then you get the normal announcement which contradicts the Covid one. Sometime the network cuts you off before getting a real person.


(edited for typos)

That?s what happens when a hospital is turned into a giant GP Practice with an appalling record of incompetence ie Concordia /Hambledon. Another cracking Southwark decision. If they cannot get the phones sorted do we really trust them with our health?


Interested to see that the Health Centre has been downgraded to a GP Practice. Is this the case or is the Practice contained within a wider health centre?

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That?s what happens when a hospital is turned into

> a giant GP Practice with an appalling record of

> incompetence ie Concordia /Hambledon. Another

> cracking Southwark decision. If they cannot get

> the phones sorted do we really trust them with our

> health?

>

> Interested to see that the Health Centre has been

> downgraded to a GP Practice. Is this the case or

> is the Practice contained within a wider health

> centre?


Tut tut what a disappointing attitude from you firstmate. I had expected better from someone who supports the goings ons of the area.

first mate Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> That?s what happens when a hospital is turned into

> a giant GP Practice with an appalling record of

> incompetence ie Concordia /Hambledon. Another

> cracking Southwark decision. If they cannot get

> the phones sorted do we really trust them with our

> health?

>

> Interested to see that the Health Centre has been

> downgraded to a GP Practice. Is this the case or

> is the Practice contained within a wider health

> centre?


Yes! I noticed that it seems to have two different names. Very confusing. And, Concordia changed its name too.

Worth noting that the GP surgery is on the first floor of the Tessa Jowell Health Centre. Like Dulwich Hospital, there were different services inside the building.


I used the blood test area on the ground floor last week and received the same amount of excellent care as at Dulwich Hospital.

IS SELDOC, the out of hours service still there? Also not clear why hospital space was given to a GP Practice. It is not as if we are not in need of hospital services. Seems like a wasted opportunity for a prime site. This hospital used to offer x-rays, maternity services and many other things that I am sure the community would value, instead they plonk a GP Practice there - which already has premises elsewhere and which has not had the best reputation to date.

The GP practice is just a part of the health centre, the community hospital services are under the auspices of the Guys and St Thomas?s NHS Foundation Trust and offer, or will offer,

children's services

community mental health services

blood testing

physiotherapy

kidney dialysis

x-rays

some hospital outpatient clinics


There was a full consultation. Any final decision was made by the Southwark Clinical Care Commissioning Care (part of the NHS) not Southwark Council which is what you implied earlier.

You may be right. My understanding has been that in terms of strategy they are involved/ decision influencers with some heft, especially re wellbeing and mental health; it is also the case that some LA workers have some access to patient information.


All that said, if the new Health Centre is indeed offering on site X-rays that is good news. I just feel the whole site should have been given over to hospital style services, I cannot believe there is not a need for this, especially when the GP super practice involved has premises locally as well as elsewhere in the borough.

There?s a huge need for GP services also. Remember there used to be a GP practice at Dulwich Hospital which closed because of the principal?s retirement a few years ago which makes it appropriate for a GP practice to be included in the new health centre.

Friernlocal Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> For clarity, kidney dialysis, physiotherapy and

> blood testing are provided at the new health

> centre by King's College Hospital, not GSTT.



But blood testing was previously done at both Dulwich Hospital and King's.


Are you saying it will now only be done at King's?


Dulwich was very convenient!

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No, I think what was meant is that the work at

> Dulwich Hospital will be a King's Satellite

> delivery - and nothing to do therefore with the

> Health centre/ GP provision.



Thanks, I completely misunderstood the post!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...