SIR – I have spent almost 30 years in general medicine with the threat of litigation if a patient is harmed after I have refused to see them personally or have relied on a telephone diagnosis, or even after I saw it without performing a proper physical examination.
I find it extraordinary to read in the medical literature that there are now educational aids on how to “minimize” the absence of important signs and symptoms during virtual consultations.
It is certainly an admission by the medical profession that virtual consultations are not as secure as face-to-face consultations, despite their protestations to the contrary.
Dr MJ Banham
SIR – Inexperienced receptionists in GP practices decide which patients need to be called back urgently. Their actions can have serious consequences. It should be enough to tell them that you are in pain. Still, if you don’t want to go into detail, you have to resort to A&E.
Receptionists do not have the qualifications to decide who needs a same-day callback and who can wait several weeks.
SIR – I am a nurse who re-enrolled at the start of the pandemic.
A general practitioner from my practice called me to organize my two Covid injections. Yet, this is a basic office task that does not require the expertise of a general practitioner.
I don’t think I’m the only one among the nurses and doctors who have re-enrolled wondering why I wasn’t called in to help. Are there not more important roles for general practitioners than those of office?
SIR – My excellent GP office had not shown any information on their website regarding Covid recalls and flu shots, until a note recently appeared that effectively said, “Don’t call us, we’ll get you. will call “, about both. I did not hear anything.
However, I recently received an email from the NHS urging me to book a Covid booster for the next morning at a time and place that works for me. Trying to find a flu shot was more difficult as I had to contact many individual pharmacies, some making occasional visits, others booking.
We could certainly help overwhelmed GPs by also shifting responsibility for influenza vaccinations to the centralized NHS model of participating pharmacies.
Tests for travelers
SIR – I am happy that PCR tests are replaced by lateral flow tests after returning from vacation abroad (report, October 15).
However, why are the NHS side-flow test kits not considered appropriate, which means the traveling public is forced to buy new ones?
Considering that thousands have been distributed and are probably only partially used, why are these batch coded kits not adequate? If they are up to date, they are surely fit for purpose, otherwise the government would not have approved them.
It is wasteful, unnecessarily expensive for travelers and it smacks of incompetence. Can’t it be changed?
CRS – In 2009, the National Lottery generated £ 1.37 billion for good causes – or 26.75% of total sales. In 2020-2021, it generated £ 1.88 billion, or 22.5% (October 13 report).
That’s an increase of over £ 500million – enough to fund 50,000 initiatives that could make a real difference in life and communities across Britain. Yet some critics have the delusion that a lower return percentage is bad news for good causes.
The bottom line is that Good Causes is now much better off in monetary terms thanks to Camelot’s development of an attractive portfolio of games that offers something for everyone. The National Lottery continues to donate 95 percent of all sales revenue to winners and to society – one of the highest percentages of lottery revenue donated in the world.
Sales are now 62% higher than they were in 2009, annual lottery fee payments to the Treasury are £ 387million higher and at their highest level, and annual player prizes are higher of about £ 2.2 billion.
You might be wondering why Camelot isn’t just increasing the size of the share that goes to good causes. The short answer is that the only way to do that would be to reduce the level of prize money available to players. However, since people mainly play lotteries to win prizes, making the games less attractive would be counterproductive. Ticket sales would soon decline, as would contributions to Good Causes and the Treasury.
Going back to more limited choice and lower prices would mean less funding for Olympians and Paralympians, reduced availability of core sports facilities, community arts projects that are struggling to get started, less support for our heritage sector, and less support for our heritage sector. lower revenues for charities.
Sir Hugh Robertson
A disgusting Christmas
SIR – To some media it seems the real spirit of Christmas is the availability of toys made with cheap labor from countries like China.
SIR – In the interests of efficiency, could Insulate Britain not be encouraged to demonstrate at the Irish border?
Climate get by
SIR – Two sentences emerge from your report on the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow (October 15): “Environmental activists from all over the world are expected in Scotland”, and “Nicola Sturgeon was in Iceland to deliver a speech on change climate. ”Need to say more?