Jump to content

Recommended Posts

'Whoeveritis', I think it's appalling that you should call individuals out by name on a public forum and then proceed to slag them off.


For what it's worth, Sue has been an absolutely wonderful and helpful receptionist in all the 8 years I have been a patient at FHR.


That aside, no-one deserves to have to read your diatribe.


Shame on you.



Whoeveritis Wrote:

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

> These receptionists leave a lot to be desired,

> patronising sue who couldn?t move any slower and

> rude and obnoxious Irene, who shouts over you , no

> social skills whatsoever, and another one who

> always looks permanently harassed. They can?t cope

> under pressure ,it?s all very unprofessional and

> they obviously hate their jobs. I?m just amazed

> they are still employed there, they must be very

> hard to get rid of is all I can think.

I've not forgotten being told by a receptionist when I queried a mistake that my name ( which honestly is not a common one ) was identical ( fore and surname ) to another patient who also had exactly same birthdate .


The crazy thing is ,I believed her ! Shows how unwell I was feeling at the time .

I've been a patient there for 32 years and counting. They have gone through good (and very bad) organisational patches - although my young children, when they were young, could always get seen, even when their parents couldn't, except for weeks of waiting. In general the actual medical care has been very good (save for some problem locums, balanced by some excellent ones) - although their record keeping (and reliance on IT) has let them down recently. You are, however, generally not encouraged to feel welcome there by the non medical staff (again with some exceptions) and this has been particularly true during Covid-19, when you feel a chorus of plague rats would get a better welcome. They have sadly lost a number of excellent partners, and with one at least useful local surgery for locally operable skin conditions.


Considering their volume of work it is hardly surprising that there have been organisational mistakes (including but not limited to prescription requests missing items in error) but these are normally quickly rectified.


With the excellent local blood suckers (in East Dulwich Hospital and now the Tessa Jowell) they have not needed their own phlebotomist - and bloods taken there get very quickly to Kings for analysis.


They are loathe to join up their activities; I have a medicines review (with the pharmacist) which is always enforced just before a set of routine blood tests, meaning I then need a second review (with a GP) in light of the bloods results. This wastes their time and mine.


But overall, they are never so bad that a move seems that good an idea. And sometimes they are very good.

The observation about not feeling welcome struck a chord with me. In the old (pre-Covid) days when you could walk into the surgery you could not help but notice all the negative notices. There are / were maybe half a dozen or more notices on the lines of . . . We don?t do this, we don?t do that, you must give 48 hours notice for this, stand here, don?t do that, we won?t tolerate this and so on. I?d often queue at the desk when the desk wasn?t manned (womanned?) but could see staff hanging around and chatting in the background. I can tell you it was not at all calming, welcoming or good for your blood pressure.


They dealt with the chatting idle backroom staff issue by hiding them behind a half height door and I dealt with the blood pressure issue by buying my own machine.

Ah ,the notices ! I quite agree George. Puts me in mind of how the cafe in Dulwich Park was .


I sort of agree ( if I've understood correctly) with Penguin's point - the good and bad instances can balance out .Except that makes it hit and miss and what's to say it doesn't balance out ?


I'm currently ignoring an invitation to sign up for a pre diabetes course offered from FHP because I've had bad experiences in the past .These chiefly consisted only of wasted time and raised hopes and related to whizzo scheme of let's give you a nominated GP who will oversee your care and a medication review ,both of which were a complete waste of time ,based on an algorithmic tick box exercise and I assume conducted only because they brought extra cash to the practice .

I sort of agree ( if I've understood correctly) with Penguin's point - the good and bad instances can balance out .Except that makes it hit and miss and what's to say it doesn't balance out ?


It balances out for me, at the moment. When it doesn't...?


I was also invited to the pre-diabetic sessions (I am very pre pre-diabetic, by the way, only one point into the zone) - they will urge you not to eat cakes, biscuits and puddings (I don't), not to have sugar with your tea and coffee (I don't), to eat more vegetables (I do), not to drink sweetened fizzy drinks or fruit juice (I don't), to cut back on alcohol drinking (a unit every 3 weeks or so) - to take more exercise (good for cardio vascular, of little use for weight control - eating less is what works there). It's about them going through the motions - but they get paid for it and I don't!


The two biggest predictors, for me, of getting diabetes (in the model) are my age and the fact that my late father was a Type 2 diabetic. If they can come up with ways I can remedy either of those I would drop in!

  • 1 month later...

I have been registered with this surgery for over 35 years together with my family. I have not been happy with the service for some time, particularly with regards to the administration and reception services.


In the past have lost records, delayed in referring to specialists (e.g. oncology departments), handed over prescriptions meant for other patients, entered incorrect details on my patient database/records stating I had medical conditions which I had not (i.e. Epilepsy), not recorded medical conditions that I do have, given false names when requested etc etc. In addition I have witnessed rudeness and impatience first hand to other patients on a number of occasions specifically with the elderly and those who do not have English as their first language. I commented at the time but I know I should have raised formal complaints.


My recent experience was I undertook an E-consult and in fairness was given an appointment to see a doctor at the Tessa Jowell Centre within a few days. The doctor was very professional and gave a diagnosis, but said I needed to have a chat to a doctor at the practice to refer me to a specialist at the hospital.


I tried to do this with reception, but after finally agreeing to a further telephone consultation with a doctor I received a call from a senior nurse to say my appointment had been cancelled by "management" and it had been transferred to her. I pointed out that the doctor at the TJC was the one who said I needed a 1-2-1 with a GP


The nurse was very helpful and undertook to make the necessary referrals but would have to request the telephone consultation be re-instated as there were issues she could not deal with which needed a GP discussion.


The problems we experience have been made worse by the Corona virus but not because of it. I have family members who are doctors and consider the service from the practice over the years to be poor. Sadly when I read the reviews and reports of other local surgeries they are at least as bad as the Forest Hill Group and therefore a change is unlikely to help - Unless anyone can suggest otherwise?

I am saddened to hear of your experience at the practice, I'd hoped things had improved a tad, clearly similar issues remain which they clearly are unable to resolve. That being the case I cannot see how the standard of care can be considered to be good by the regulator CQC. Perhaps its worth making them aware of the issues you describe as well as Southwark CCG. The practice is supposed to put patients care first, sounds as though its anything but.


As an aside why have they still not published the most recent patient group minutes. The last set a re a single A4 page of quite frankly garbage.

My husband had a very different experience this morning. He rang for an on the day telephone consultation at 8 a.m.. The doctor rang him at 9 a.m. and suggested a possible diagnosis. He was given an appointment for first thing tomorrow morning at the Tessa Jowell Centre, and was given a referral form to get an x ray immediately afterwards. I'm not sure how that could be improved, particularly in the middle of a pandemic.

But it is interesting to note that Forest Hill Road no longer seems to operate as a working surgery - both recent posts say they were referred to Tessa Jowell - presumably SELDOC or its successor. I only physically entered the surgery once these last 12 months, to get a flu jab from a nurse when I was rushed through - otherwise it's queuing in the rain to wait for a claw to hand out a form or receive back a sample. Do they still actually have doctors there at all, or is at all nurses and other (non medical) staff referring out to practices which still seem to be working?


There are precious few active cases of Covid-19 now in Southwark (according to the figures) - what are they still frightened of that they treat us like medieval lepers? The tiny crack they open the surgery door to, when forced, is a leper's squint if ever I saw one? But in their case it is the rest of the world which is the leprosarium.

I think there is possibly a model that is being pursued to substitute GPs with practitioner nurses. I believe this idea was initiated/ mooted many years ago by Concordia which now runs the Tessa Jowell medical centre. The NHS is being run down, there is a shortage of GPs. It seems a fair few changes have been slipped through in the name of Covid.
I think that is perfectly correct for trained nurses to be doing stuff that need trained nurses. Doctors are needed soemtimes, but not always. I have seen pharmacists at my surgery and have been pleased with their consultation. If you are concerned about there being a shortage of doctors, write to your MP and ask them to campaign for newly qualified docs to have to stay for ten years before going abroad, for example. There will always be a GP you can see, it's just that you may not need to see one and be perfectly well cared for by someone who despite their less heralded status is up to the job.
Shortage of GPs is a fact, I think politicians of all persuasions are well aware of this. I disagree that you can generally see a GP if you need to, perhaps you have been lucky enough not to require one out of hours for a complex condition but not everyone is so fortunate. The 111 service is a joke and also increasingly dependent on nurse practitioners and less clinically qualified staff. I also disagree with your insinuation that I may have been involved in asking for a GP when a nurse practitioner or similar would have been adequate. How can you possibly be so sure? My experience and that of others I know has clearly been very different from yours. For single factor, simple conditions you may have a point for anything else you are way off base.

Such solipsism!


When I say you, I mean "one", so please don't be so secure in the belief that I was necessarily talking about you, first mate. To think I was "insinuating" something about a complete stranger on an anonymised website suggests a bit of a victim mentality. Why not talk to a doctor about this. (Or a nurse?)


Also, how do you know I don't have a non-simple condition? You don't, so I will make a point of using "one" in future to avoid baseless accusations of "insinuation" and lack of care and concern from people I don't know.


I hope you (not one) get the care you want.

Thanks Nigello. One more point, it is about need not want, there is a real distinction which, if you were or have ever been in similar position, you may better understand. No victim mentality here; a bit of crass and unnecessary point scoring on your part. Why not go away and have a careful think as to whether you really know as much about this area as you feel you do.
FHGP is pretty poor. It strikes me they have way more people on their books than they offer a decent service to. The nurses are excellent in my experience though. But their admin is a disaster zone. Same with most GPs. This bit of the NHS needs dismantling top to bottom and reforming.

Totally agree Taper


Was referred to Kings in 11/20 by a GP at FHRGP. The GP had made a referral purely based on the numbers rather having considered the patient history. After six months of worry, it turns out the GP's referral was unnecessary. Had they done a bit of checking themselves or even bothered phoning the unit in Kings to discuss the figures and case history the referral would have been required. The GP has wasted both my and the hospitals time.


Thanks FHRGP for the six moths of worry you caused through a mis diagnosis, it looks like he is no longer a GP at FHRGP. Phew!

GP stands for General Practitioner. ie 'general' rather than 'expert'. Give them a break will you or just go private, which will mean better service for the rest of us.


As a general point does anyone of this forum have a good thing to say about anything? It feels that way at the moment.

  • 4 weeks later...

Did anyone else registered at Forest Hill Road GP get a slightly ranty and misspelled message from the practice today about vaccine passports? I?m signed up to receive messages from the practice via the MYGP app, and got one today with a weird bit.ly link that ended:


?DO NOT CONTACT YOU GP FOR A VACCINE PASSPORT- we not able to provide it?


I kind of want to contact them to ask if they?ve been hacked or whether they think that?s an appropriate way to communicate with patients, no matter how many questions they are getting. However, curious to know if it?s just me that got the message.

Yes, I got that text message at around midday today, thought it looked a bit odd, too, so didn't open up the whole message. Coincidentally I'd booked my second covid jab at Tessa Jowell earlier this morning (hoorah!)after a whole weekend trying, so I wondered if the text was connected with that and just made to look official. But then I'm a very suspicious person/worrier...

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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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