[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Jaan Jänesmäe wrote: > > Many of you have read it or seen it on tv already: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/7277275.stm > > just wanted a public opinion about it. I'm intrigued by the "complementary" reference. Usually, but not always, it is a euphemism for unproven. "Unproven" for established treatments usually means "doesn't work", since for most medical treatments it is fairly easy to establish if they work, or at least work at a useful level (I'm not really that interested in Acupuncture if it turns out to be less effective than aspirin, even if it does work in some conditions). > Now, 1 stupid question to everyone: why ain't the GP-s getting really > friendly with the hospitals and together create polyclinics also near > the hospitals? Wouldn't it be more easyer to share some of the > facilities and then the waiting lines for treatmen could be also > reduced. Organising things is always complex. I have the other take as someone with a specific condition which affects many aspects of health, I prefer treatment systems where I see a specific doctor (who vaguely remembers me), or specialists in the condition, which is the exact opposite of a generalised clinic. Guess it depends why you want to see a doctor. Holiday jabs, broken bones, common infections, are quite different from say maternity/obstetrics, specialist surgery etc. I can see such clinics working well for the former, but the most of those are easily done by GPs or A&E. I think it clear that general medicine is organised along largely historical lines, despite many changes in technology. I'm always surprised how little diagnostic technology is used in general practice. Compared to my dentists, the doctors surgery has distinctly lower capital investment - thermometer/spignometer/stethoscope maybe a hammer for hitting patients and a few other items scattered around - I do wonder if a huge capital investment in more sophisticated equipment might result in efficient (and more accurate) diagnosis. GPs average about 50% accuracy in diagnosis, so there is plenty of room for improvement. Certainly if you have cash to burn you can get fully body NMR scans privately. There is little evidence they are useful if you have no symptoms. But the NHS struggles in places to get NMR for less urgent conditions - because there weren't enough scanners around. NMR and related technologies potentially hold the promise for a lot more than they currently are used for. But probably we need big investment in these or similar technologies to develop the right systems for GP use, and purchasing structures that won't baulk at systems of medicine that need a lot fewer doctors.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html