Jump to content

Recommended Posts

then put those worries/accusations directly ot the GP surgery and say you will include their reply in your letter to an MP. At least then you will have done the most you can adn will have put your claims directly to the doctor or practice manager. I just think you are claiming a lot fo things without anything other than a supposition gleaned from a series of events you have decided add up to your conclusion. Such claims could worry other peopel who up till now may have not even thought about their health being hijacked by a "deliberate strategy" to manage the practice's backlog.

Lynne Wrote:

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

> I'd like to know if people think it's worth

> changing to the Tessa Jowell centre?


I'd check the practice boundary first as like The Gardens, it's shrunk.


https://www.tessajowellgpsurgery.co.uk/patient-info/practice-boundary/

"If I have any questions about their qualifications or their role, I ask questions and if I don't get the answer I want, I ask to see a doctor there and then"


my writing style is v long winded ,apologies


I would rather a HP told me their role ,I'm prob.old fashioned ,but I feel rude asking .


I don't subscribe to a strategy of asking another person a question if I don't like the answer from the first person I asked .


As for asking to see a doctor there and then - you'd expect a doctor to stop what they're doing ( seeing a patient ? ) and immediately come and deal with your queries .


And how would that work on a telephone consultation ?

Jenijenjen Wrote:

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

> alice Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The only way to contact them online is via a

> form

> > where you had to sign to confirm you are not

> > seeking any information about a medical

> problem.

>

>

> This is a little misleading. There is a contact

> form which states it shouldn?t be used about a

> medical problem, nothing about ?signing.? I should

> imagine it?s so that those needing medical help

> don?t used a general contact form where there

> query may get overlooked.



not actually 'signing' but ticking a box which in the virtual world is, well, virtually identical. So my intention was not to mislead.

Still misleading. There are options to indicate what your query is about e.g. ?comment or suggestion? ?complaint? which is quite common for online contact forms. To say there is a requirement to tick an option to say the email does not relate to a medical issue is just twisting the facts.


I have to say though I find a couple of the other posts above concerning.

Jenijenjen Wrote:

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

> Whoeveritis Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Jenijenjen Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > I submitted an econsult form to FHRGP,

> received

> > a

> > > phone call from them by the end of the day

> and

> > had

> > > an appointment at Tessa Jowell the next day

> >

> > Not any more , their econsult is no longer an

> > option

>

>

> Well, it?s working now. It doesn?t operate when

> the practice is closed.

>

> https://fhrgp.webgp.com/


Nope still not working. Their bleak welcoming voice message says the their econsult is inactive , lol

Not sure if this is of interest or mentioned before but we are registered with DMC and after the usual call at this time, no appointments available, call back tomorrow etc. I just said am I better off registering with Tessa Jowell centre. DMC said oh we can book you an appointment there if you like, there is availability 10, 12 or 2pm tomorrow?

I said yes please?

Seemed a lot easier.

redjam Wrote:

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

> That's interesting, Granadaland. Is DMC affiliated

> to the Tessa Jowell Centre in some way? I don't

> really understand how it all fits together.


All of South Southwark's surgeries are part of a federation called Improving Health Ltd, through this they were able to offer Covid 19 vaccines at TJC for example and can refer patients to other surgeries for help if they offer a specific service.


The individual surgeries are either independently owned, such as 306 Medical Centre and Lordship Lane Surgery or owned by other companies such as Omnes Healthcare who run the TJC surgery.

  • 8 months later...
  • Administrator

(Bumping a topic from earlier this year - still very relevant)


The latest report for Dulwich Medical Centre has just been published and doesn't make for pleasant reading!

https://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-565650623

https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/dulwich-gp-put-special-measures-25456602

Quote from the CQC report on DMC (Crystal Palace Road)…


“I am placing this service in special measures. Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service.”


Report highlights, among many other issues, access issues and reports the response from DMC that they are taking steps to improve access, but any user (or ex-user) of DMC knows that DMC have been saying that for at least the past decade.


At the same time DMC state in this report that the number of complaints about access issues has gone down in the last year. The number of complaints to the CQC has also gone down in the last year. I suspect people have become so exasperated that they have given up complaining or have left and joined other practices, It’s simply not acceptable that a GP surgery at the heart of our community has been allowed to rot in this way.


With the DMC now in special measures there is a golden window of opportunity to finally remove the “provider from operating this service.” This will only happen if the evidence is there to support that action so please, please if you’re a patient at DMC and are not happy with the services you have been provided with keep the pressure up and ensure your voice is heard through the DMC complaints system and through the CQC complaints system.

I have't got the time or strength to list all my complaints about my dealings with the DMC. They have caused me more upset and stress than the actual conditions I'm being treated for. Yet when we first joined it, we were very happy with it compared to FH Rd. Perhaps we were younger and healthier then and didn't actually need any help.

It is very important we all address our issues with CQC, NHS ENGLAND, & I would also suggest out local MP!


I am currently going through a situation with tessa jowell.

I’m going all out!

The service is a shambles.


At some point in the future I will post about it.

  • 2 weeks later...

I am afraid they are institutionally unable to listen and to change and full of poorly educated people - they might have passed some formal tests, assuming they have not been brought in by colleagues against the payment of bribes, but nonetheless very poorly educated and with an even worse customer service attitude.


I have really started to think how better would be to have a monthly or annual voucher for health costs proportionate to age and diagnosed health conditions and be free to spend the money where I trust people and credentials. I would never choose, for instance, a surgery hospital or provider with those fat, even obese, nurses that smell cigarettes and vapes and want to give people lifestyle advice!


And what about the receptionists unable to speak English or to write down an address without spelling mistakes that - hear hear - have the power to decide and write in your records all sorts of absurdities including now even (obviously worng!) referrals! Four out of five NHS receptionists I have had the stressful experience to talk with in my life should not be there in my opinion.

  • 5 months later...

“Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service.” 

 

Last CQC report was published 4 Nov (last site visit 22 Sep). CQC site today says “Important: We are carrying out a review of quality at Dulwich Medical Centre. We will publish a report when our review is complete.” Action now imminent since six months since last inspection has now elapsed?

Has anyone, anything positive to say about Forest Hill road Group Practice or is still the shambles it has been for a considerable amount of time, I hear nothing but bad things said by people about this practice. Please say if it has got any better or does it need urgent treatment itself. Shame their isn't an A&E for poorly run surgeries!!!!!

I've been at the surgery my entire life. Penny, the advance nurse practitioner is amazing. I'm in the middle of a cancer scare and the GP has been amazing. I was contacted the day after blood results were received and referred to Kings the same day. The same GP phoned me today to see how I'm doing. They certainly have their faults but they've served me well over the past 56 years 

  • 3 months later...
On 27/04/2023 at 11:25, green bean said:

“Services placed in special measures will be inspected again within six months. If insufficient improvements have been made such that there remains a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating the service.” 

 

Last CQC report was published 4 Nov (last site visit 22 Sep). CQC site today says “Important: We are carrying out a review of quality at Dulwich Medical Centre. We will publish a report when our review is complete.” Action now imminent since six months since last inspection has now elapsed?

Just checked CQC website for Dulwich Medical Centre… https://www.cqc.org.uk/location/1-565650623/inspection-summary

same message as above is on the page and it’s now nearly a further 4 months on. Anyone know what the current situation is? 

Technical question reading the above made me look at my own GP practice. FHGP inspection report says it has 6 gps and 2 partner gps then goes on to say they provide 44 gp appointments each week  Thst just doesn’t sound right.  can anyone correct me?

Ps they have taken on more staff and their performance recently has been vastly, improved in speed and efficiency

Edited by alice
11 hours ago, alice said:

FHGP inspection report says it has 6 gps and 2 partner gps then goes on to say they provide 44 gp appointments each week  Thst just doesn’t sound right.  can anyone correct me?

I suspect these employment figures are absolute, not FTE - many of the GP staff are (or at least were, when I last checked) part-time. And most appointments are on the phone, not face-to-face. I think a 'GP appointment' may refer to a face-to-face appointment in the surgery - which are now as rare as hens teeth. Considering the surgery is always empty of waiters when I (rarely) attend to pick up forms I'm amazed they have as many as 44 a week. Considering the waiters that are there are normally for the practice nurses.

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

    • 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.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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