it would be interesting to hear from somebody who is involved in medical practice
Yet you criticise from your position.
The people who arrange and work with this situation ARE those in a position to know.
--
Doctors aren't a different breed of human. They do a lot of training - most of which is never used when they're a GP.
They get out of date quite quickly, and aren't rechecked on their knowledge afaik.
In the same way a pharmacist can decide whether you should see a doctor, someone with appropriate training can do likewise without going through the full Dr course.
I have a couple of slightly unusual things wrong with me, and invariably have to educate, or more commonly remind, new doctors I see. Particularly older ones.
I saw a consultant last week. He made a complete pigs ear of his assessment. He didn't have a full "history", just a brief letter from the GP. He arranged the test she'd sent me for and explained the results, but then he went on way outside what he could reasonably decide on. Madness.
My old mother has had a load of medical problems, enough to fill a book. She was recently in hospital with anaemia, and we had to tell the drs she'd had bowel cancer in the past. Then they went off to do extra scans etc. It's a crappy system.
WIth one of MY things, I did some reading and asked the GP if a particular scan would be appropriate for me. "Oh, hasn't anyone ever done one", came the reply.
The sooner they get proper intelligent computer diagnosis systems into GP surgeries, the better.
Computers never forget what you've had before.
If surgeries have a
person to ask all those questions, and do simple stuff like blood tests and examinations, that sounds fine to me.
None of us likes i but GO receptionists ARE capable of broad screening, most of the time, which is why they ask what's up. If you have an ingrowing toenail, you aren't likely to be a case needing an urgent appointment, etc etc, even if YOU think you are.
