Government's Plan to Kill GP Practices

[supersunbird]

Who do people hate more now, the government or those private doctors.

The government

 

[Swa]

Im ganna read that that regulating document, but basically your issue is you dont think GPs should be regulated?

Do you see anything here that you would not see in Canadian regulations?

I dont see anything wrong with a bit of regulating

Did either of you read any of the actual regulations? Please show me where else in the world these apply. And in which country can a government just walk in and inspect my confidential information? I know there are a few but it's not any first world country I know of.

Knowing CPR I can understand and it's something that's included in the doctor's course in any case, but why be certified annually?

Is there one thing in this country the government hasn't ****ed up through regulation? I think it's high time that the government gets regulated.

 

[JerryMungo]

Im ganna read that that regulating document, but basically your issue is you dont think GPs should be regulated?

Do you see anything here that you would not see in Canadian regulations?

ANC?

 

[w1z4rd]

Did either of you read any of the actual regulations? .

Yes, they seemed reasonable to me for basic standards for a medical facility. Which is why I asked how they are when compared to a country like Canada. I even posted one I really liked. Which is why I am confused you would ask this question when I copied and pasted from the regulations. But anyways. Mob away. You know better.

 

[w1z4rd]

Wow, check out the canadian regulations, everything is regulated there, they have it pinned down. I cant compare, as their shortest document is a book long as is the index of medical facility standards. Our doctors have it easy compared to Canadian doctors. Well, I guess the Canadians dont have to deal with the worlds most useless dept (HPCSA) so there is that as well.

 

[Swa]

Yes, they seemed reasonable to me for basic standards for a medical facility. Which is why I asked how they are when compared to a country like Canada. I even posted one I really liked. Which is why I am confused you would ask this question when I copied and pasted from the regulations. But anyways. Mob away. You know better.

It seems reasonable to you as a basic standard that doctors HAVE to follow a specific protocol? Seriously no room for individualism or prescribing off-label medication which is an accepted practice the world over?

That is just one regulation that's a problem. I pointed out the problem about our government wanting to probe into every part of our lives. Then there's duplication of equipment they probably don't even need. Honestly I haven't even seen specialists have anything beyond sonar. How many brain surgeons have an MRI machine lying around as opposed to sending patients to the hospital to get a scan?

You ask how many of these regulations are also present in a country like say Canada? I'd hazard a guess here and say none. Because other countries actually understand the areas they regulate as opposed to having people from the bush school making the regulations.

 

[w1z4rd]

Did either of you read any of the actual regulations? Please show me where else in the world these apply. And in which country can a government just walk in and inspect my confidential information? I know there are a few but it's not any first world country I know of.

Knowing CPR I can understand and it's something that's included in the doctor's course in any case, but why be certified annually?

Is there one thing in this country the government hasn't ****ed up through regulation? I think it's high time that the government gets regulated.

CPR methods are evolving to be better constantly. The way you learnt 5 years ago is not how you do it now. Even someone with a First Aid course knows this. This is already something foreign doctors are expected to do and I know when my wife did hers she told me it had changed and she had learnt a better new method.

 

[Swa]

Wow, check out the canadian regulations, everything is regulated there, they have it pinned down. I cant compare, as their shortest document is a book long as is the index of medical facility standards. Our doctors have it easy compared to Canadian doctors. Well, I guess the Canadians dont have to deal with the worlds most useless dept (HPCSA) so there is that as well.

You mind copy and pasting some of the ones that relate to what was posted? You can't simply refer to the amount of regulation and say that everything is regulated when it is the way it's regulated that's the problem.

 

[w1z4rd]

You ask how many of these regulations are also present in a country like say Canada? I'd hazard a guess here and say none. Because other countries actually understand the areas they regulate as opposed to having people from the bush school making the regulations.

Canada is heavily and smartly regulated. Hence the high levels of healthcare for the population as a whole.

 

[w1z4rd]

You mind copy and pasting some of the ones that relate to what was posted? You can't simply refer to the amount of regulation and say that everything is regulated when it is the way it's regulated that's the problem.

Go buy it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24696939

 

[Swa]

CPR methods are evolving to be better constantly. The way you learnt 5 years ago is not how you do it now. Even someone with a First Aid course knows this. This is already something foreign doctors are expected to do and I know when my wife did hers she told me it had changed and she had learnt a better new method.

Really they do? Because 10 years ago you did chest compressions at the rate of "staying alive" with mouth to mouth. Today you still do the same chest compressions with... well you actually no longer need to do the mouth to mouth. So not much has changed.

 

[w1z4rd]

Really they do? Because 10 years ago you did chest compressions at the rate of "staying alive" with mouth to mouth. Today you still do the same chest compressions with... well you actually no longer need to do the mouth to mouth. So not much has changed.

 

[Swa]

Canada is heavily and smartly regulated. Hence the high levels of healthcare for the population as a whole.

Keyword which is sadly lacking in a backwards country like South Africa.

Go buy it. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24696939

Ok mate...

 

[w1z4rd]

Really they do? Because 10 years ago you did chest compressions at the rate of "staying alive" with mouth to mouth. Today you still do the same chest compressions with... well you actually no longer need to do the mouth to mouth. So not much has changed.

10 years ago they were teaching A B C, now they teach C A B. Please dont give medical advice

 

[w1z4rd]

Ok mate...

I dont have people like you who are mates, different crowds.

An exert from that link you responded to that I pasted:

Regulation and oversight of independent health facilities in Canada.
Pries CR, Vanin S, Cartagena RG.
Abstract
Independent health facilities ("IHFs") are an important part of Canada's health care system existing at the interface of public and private care. They offer benefits to individual patients and the public at large, such as improved access to care, reduced wait times, improved choice in the delivery of care, and more efficient use of health care resources. They can also provide physicians greater autonomy, control of resources, and opportunity for profit compared to other practice settings, particularly because IHFs can deliver services outside of publicly-funded health care plans. IHFs also present challenges, particularly around quality of care and patient safety, and the potential to breach the principles of "Medicare" under the Canada Health Act. Various measures are in place to address these challenges, while still enabling the benefits IHFs can offer. IHFs are primarily regulated and overseen at the provincial level through legislation, regulations and provincial medical regulatory College by-laws. Health Canada is responsible for administering the overarching framework for "Medicare". Oversight and regulatory provisions vary across Canada, and are notably absent in the Maritime provinces and the territories. This article provides an overview of specific provisions related to IHFs across the country and how they can co-exist with the Canada Health Act.
PMID: 24696939
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

There is a real lot of it, so whoever really cares enough about this will have to register to get the full publication. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24696939

 

[Swa]

10 years ago they were teaching A B C, now they teach C A B. Please dont give medical advice

You mind giving the specifics of ABC? I am sure the small changes over the years that I have seen won't make the difference between life and death and is not really necessary for recertification especially if you're not dealing with life threatening situations.

 

[w1z4rd]

You mind giving the specifics of ABC?

http://www.heartacademy.org/phpwcms/index.php?Vol9No4_Page13

Why Did the Steps of CPR change from A-B-C to C-A-B?

Does the thought of putting your mouth on the mouth of a total stranger give you the heebie-jeebies? Even if you’re aware of CPR’s role in saving lives, you may think twice about performing mouth-to-mouth resuscitation because of the fear of getting an infection.

The good news is that in 2010, the American Heart Association (AHA) changed CPR’s longstanding A-B-C (Airway, Breathing, Compressions) sequence to C-A-B (Compressions, Airway, Breathing). The old A-B-C sequence for CPR consisted of the following steps:

Airways - Tilt the victim’s head and lift his chin to open the airway
Breathing - Pinch the victim’s nose and breathe into the mouth
Compressions – Apply pressure to the victim’s chest
The new C-A-B (Compressions, Airway, Breathing) sequence teaches rescuers to perform chest presses before anything else. But after four decades, why did the AHA implement such a drastic change? There is a lot of buzz surrounding the A-B-C to C-A-B update because it requires anyone who learned CPR previously to get re-educated, but the AHA thinks the pros outweigh the cons.


The Science behind the Decision
In an adult who has been breathing normally, there is enough oxygen in the blood to supply the heart and the brain for several minutes following cardiac arrest. Chest compressions are needed, however, to circulate the oxygen and ensure that it is distributed quickly.

Rescue breaths are thought to be harmful because they require the rescuer to stop doing chest compressions for several seconds. Additionally, rescue breaths lower air pressure in the chest cavity, which in turn slows down circulation, a key factor in resuscitation. If the rescuer does chest compressions first, the victim gains approximately 30 seconds of time in his favor.

When people follow the A-B-C sequence to perform CPR, there is often a significant delay because they spend so much time trying to open the airway, make an air-tight seal around the mouth, or get over their reluctance to do mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. With the new C-A-B sequence, people initiate chest compressions sooner and ventilation is only slightly delayed. The AHA also predicts that the number of people who receive CPR will increase because of this change, since bystanders often balk at the idea of performing mouth-to-mouth resuscitation on a total stranger.

However, the change from A-B-C to C-A-B only applies to adult victims of sudden cardiac arrest. For children and in cases of asphyxial arrest, drug overdose, or near-drowning among adults, rescuers are still recommended to follow the A-B-C sequence.

http://www.emccprtraining.com/blog/post/why-did-the-steps-for-cpr-change-from-a-b-c-to-c-a-b

I highlighted the last bit cause I want to make it clear that you need to change the order in certain situation. And Im sure this body of knowledge will continue to evolve which is why you want your doctor knowing what works best. Its an evolving industry, sometimes you need to put away the leeches and get with the times.

 

[Kilgore_Trout_Redux]

A lot of these look like they are bringing the system closer to what Australia has.

 

[Swa]

http://www.heartacademy.org/phpwcms/index.php?Vol9No4_Page13




http://www.emccprtraining.com/blog/post/why-did-the-steps-for-cpr-change-from-a-b-c-to-c-a-b

I highlighted the last bit cause I want to make it clear that you need to change the order in certain situation. And Im sure this body of knowledge will continue to evolve which is why you want your doctor knowing what works best. Its an evolving industry, sometimes you need to put away the leeches and get with the times.

I think it's you who need to get with the times. The guidelines are just that, guidelines. Anybody who's a rescuer knows you access the situation and perform the appropriate steps. I'm not going to delve too deep into it but guidelines follow what is already considered best practice.

It's thus unnecessary to reteach people certified in CPR. The guidelines published are more aimed at the public. The reason mouth to mouth is no longer recommended for the public is because there's no observable difference in outcome for most situations plus with the risk of infection and people possibly being put off from preforming CPR it can have an adverse effect. Trained rescuers are still required to access the situation rather than perform A-B-C, C-A-B or C-A. You still haven't shown where this constantly evolving technique is apart from one change in the history of CPR.

 

[Swa]

There is a system in place to identify users with highly contagious conditions and prevent transmission of their infection to other users.
Guideline: This refers to users who may attend with conditions such as scabies, viral diarrhoea and vomiting, active TB, flu, etc. The system can include using seating and flooring that can be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected, ensuring that these users are prioritised to minimise their contact with non-infected users, disinfection of the consultation room after they have been seen, etc.

Ok this is interesting. How are you supposed to identify people with TB, flu, scabies, viral diarrhoea etc.? These are conditions that are only identifiable after detailed investigation and tests. Seems a lot of time would be wasted on identifying causes that could be better spent in the doctor's office.

The practice provides ventilation which is adequate to prevent the transmission of respiratory infections.
Guideline: This area must be well ventilated to reduce the risk of users who are coughing but not infected contracting an infection from coughing infected users. Natural ventilation relies on open doors and windows to bring in air from the outside. Fans may also assist in this process and redistribute the air. Mechanical ventilation usually refers to the use of mechanical air-moving equipment that circulates air in a building and may also involve heating and/or cooling. Mechanical ventilation systems may or may not bring in air from the outside. [Francis J. Curry National Tuberculosis Center, 2007: Tuberculosis Infection Control: A Practical Manual for Preventing TB, pg 15] Mechanical ventilation can therefore include, but is not limited to, fans, air conditioners and extractor fans.

Ok this is moronic. Circulating air will do nothing but cause people to contract illnesses. The only way to prevent infection is through extraction and negative air pressure but this doesn't hold for people that are sharing the same space.