"we have no appointments so we'll make an appointment with another surgery"

[miga]

.

[uncleglen]

I remember the term 'the worried well' cropping up years ago and that it was their fault that GPs were over used.

[Sue]

uncleglen Wrote:

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

> I remember the term 'the worried well' cropping up

> years ago and that it was their fault that GPs

> were over used.

The trouble is, unless you are a qualified doctor, you have no idea whether your symptoms could be of something serious or not (unless it's obviously a cold or other trivial ailment).

So - you might indeed turn out to be "worried well", but you could also put off seeing your GP for fear of being accused of worrying about nothing, and end up dead because by the time you eventually made an appointment it was too late. As happened to my then mother-in-law.

[The Minkey]

Sometimes the qualified doctors don't get the diagnosis right so a person may have to go back repeatedly trying to get help. For example, a close family member spent two dreadful years trying to get a diagnosis from her GP, a man not known for his brilliant mind. Eventually, she had to go private by which time she was seriously unwell with systemic lupus.

[uncleglen]

Yes Sue, and being a cynical type, I thought 'they' were trying to put people off going. From my own experiences the GP seems to go for the most common ailment when diagnosing and then works his/her way through other possibilities until eventually (6 months in our case) there is a result.

[Dopamine1979]

Sue Wrote:

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

> uncleglen Wrote:

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

> -----

> > I remember the term 'the worried well' cropping

> up

> > years ago and that it was their fault that GPs

> > were over used.

>

>

> The trouble is, unless you are a qualified doctor,

> you have no idea whether your symptoms could be of

> something serious or not (unless it's obviously a

> cold or other trivial ailment).

>

> So - you might indeed turn out to be "worried

> well", but you could also put off seeing your GP

> for fear of being accused of worrying about

> nothing, and end up dead because by the time you

> eventually made an appointment it was too late. As

> happened to my then mother-in-law.

You're right of course Sue. Not everyone is as sensible as you though. I think a huge part of the problem is that lots of people turn up to their GP with 'trivial ailments'. This uses up valuable appointments. This makes it harder for people like your mother-in-law to get assessed in a timely fashion.

It's tempting to think that privatisation/levying a fee at the point of delivery would solve this problem but research suggests otherwise. It's called the Inverse Care Law. 'The law states that: "The availability of good medical care tends to vary inversely with the need for it in the population served. This ... operates more completely where medical care is most exposed to market forces, and less so where such exposure is reduced." (Hart, 1971).' In other words those that really need help are less likely to receive it.

I'm not sure what the answer is but certainly good education of the population about what is 'normal' (e.g colds) and when to seek medical advice would be helpful.