fao Doll

[Sqad]

CD....relating to a thread on Saturday concerning a woman who;s husband had a lump investigated and nothing was happening to him, I suggested that her asks the GP for the Consultant's report. I should have said Consultants letter to the GP.

You said that Consultants no longer send "reports" to the GP, but they do send letters and results of investigations to the GP.

Are we on crossed threads?

[China Doll]

Kind of. We always send letters post a clinic appointment but we don't necessarily send the results of investigations at all unless requested on the basis that patients come to see the Consultant/anoter member of team (depending) in clinic for discussion of results and their ongoing care.

Results can be given/mentioned via letter (often just to update GP on the care the patient is receiving) as well obviously but again, it's generally post a consultation. We certainly don't make a habit of sending out scan or pathology results unless specifiically requested. I don't know if this is because of the particularly specialist nature of their field (most GPs probably wouldn't be able to answer all the patients questions and I don't think they'd really want to eitehr) and other consultants do this regularly but not here.

The only medical reports we do are again when requested and generally they are for legal matters.

[China Doll]

And are you referring specifically to lumps?

[Sqad]

Thanks for your reply.

My opinion....that is terrible. What is the point in the patient going back to his GP if the GP hasn't the patient's results to hand.

Things clearly have changed and, in my opinion, not for the better.

The routine would be that after seeing the patient, the Consultant would write a letter to the GP, on the very same day, outlining the results of his examination, investigations to be performed and date of follow up.

On follow up the Consultant would send a letter to the GP with the results of the investigations and what treatment is suggested.

That above was routine.

[China Doll]

A letter would say what treatment and investigation the patients are having. They wouldn't necessarily know the date of follow up but would say when they are due back for review in terms of months etc... At the follow up a letter goes to the GP saying what treatment they're on/if anything needs prescribed/discharged from care/next follow up etc.... There's no reason to send the scans or the pathologie results. It's just extra paper.

If it's a cancer patient and if it's a tertiary referral then we often already have the pathologies/scan results from the previous consultant and once again, we'll send a letter saying what we're going to do and what's happening but it's unnecessary to send every single scan/pathology result to the GP when we can summarise the results in a letter. And half the time if it's surgery they're coming in the following week anyway so by the time the GP gets the letter we've already done half the treatment plan.

Maybe the GP played a more active role in your patients care/specialty?Other than on going prescriptions and perhaps dressing changes post surgery (and even then not always), there's not really very much a GP can do with a number of our patients. (Frankly there's not very much we can do with a select few but '... Clearly Nuts...' tends not to be an appropriate diagnosis, no matter how accurate).

[Sqad]

CD I understand all that, but it appears that our lady's husbands GP knew "bu99er all"

Never mind and thanks for your replies CD.

[China Doll]

A lot of GP's know 'bu88er all' in my experience.... Especially if you have to go via one of the pitballs on reception/secretarial team. It's often suprising how much information they've had. (Although I do think that the situation described in the previous thread was 'odd'... However it's only ever one side of the story so I always try and be objective to all parties concerned).

[humpy07]

ChinaDoll - Imagine how 'odd' I find the whole situation! In my opinion, the GP cannot be expected to provide accurate information if nothing is being passed to him by the consultant or his pit bull of a secretary. He can only speculate on the thoughts of the consultant, by my passing of information to him. I've seen some of the brief letters my GP has received from the consultant, and they do not provide any useful information at all, and simply say "I have now referred the patient to see a Neurologist", with no further explanation.

I agree with Sqad's opinion that the system is terrible, and a reflection of the NHS today.

PS Thanks for your help Sqad