is it normal for another GP to fill DLA form in

Trialia

A_Flock_Of_Sheep wrote: »

I wonder if people would make weekly appointments if there was a charge of £20 per appointment.

Some wouldn't be able to make appointments at all - like my younger sister, who has major mental health problems and several physical, and can barely afford the £5 per appointment to see her counsellor after she's paid her rent and utilities.

Think how lucky you are that you could afford £20 for an appointment - a lot of people can't.

TOBRUK

If someone is inclined to visit the GP every week (WITHOUT THE GP's REQUEST) they would be told not to by the GP practice!

Those complaining that they are unable to get an appointment should make enquiries of why - how many MISSED appointments are there? At our surgery they have information on a board (lit up) stating how many missed appointments each week ... it is unbelievable the number of missed appointments there are!

Not only surgeries but do you know how many missed appointments there are at the outpatients' clinics each day?! It is staggering ... and to think how many patients are waiting to see a consultant!

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

TOBRUK wrote: »

If someone is inclined to visit the GP every week (WITHOUT THE GP's REQUEST) they would be told not to by the GP practice!

Those complaining that they are unable to get an appointment should make enquiries of why - how many MISSED appointments are there? At our surgery they have information on a board (lit up) stating how many missed appointments each week ... it is unbelievable the number of missed appointments there are!

Not only surgeries but do you know how many missed appointments there are at the outpatients' clinics each day?! It is staggering ... and to think how many patients are waiting to see a consultant!

Perhaps they should start charging people for missed appointments. But every time I go to my GP I get stuck behind someone that's in there 40 minutes and then im needled out the door in less than 10 minutes.

[Deleted User]

sardine wrote: »

I don't understand? Why should that be necessary?

Surely the report is completed from the historical info held in the practice and can be filled in by any doctor using those notes. Are you actually saying that you do that to make sure the GP will remember what to put on the report? Presumably you believe he won't bother reading the notes.

If so, your GP sounds like mine. Except that I have given up reminding him of things - that isn't my job! He needs a damn good secretary!!

when you give the DLA your GP details you are effectively putting him down as a reference,and in my book its only good manners to tell him you have done this.
I dont know about you but usually when i see my GP its about medical problems NOT care/mobility problems,so a timely discussion about these can only work in your favour
of course you can just ignore such advice and take your chances

deeplyblue

sardine wrote: »

Thankyou for those comments. I hope you don't mind, but I have taken a printed copy of them and will be using the advice as an example of what some people feel like they have to do in this country to hopefully gain their rightfull entitlement.

You are welcome to use whatever you find useful, with the caveat that I am not qualified as a Welfare Rights Officer. I've just been through, and seen, rather a lot.

This rigmarole is IMO something of an indictment of the system which the DWP are attempting to bring in. They say that they want to have lots of evidence, since before now - if you believe the Daily Mail - all you had to do was contact the DWP, tell them over the phone that you have a bit of bad back and they would give you a new car and lots of money for the rest of your life.

That's rubbish, of course, you always have had to provide a very detailed account of your condition and, usually, go through a medical, as well as providing evidence from your GP.

Under the new system of PIP (to replace the DLA treadmill with something much worse in a couple of years' time) they will want "objective" medical evidence. This means the ATOS test which is actually an interview where the ATOS Health Care Professional decides if there any grounds at all on which you can be refused benefit. They tell you to provide the ATOS HCP with additional information, but they haven't the time to read it.

A few people will get through. The vast majority will not. Those with the stamina will go to Tribunal to appeal - this is where all the evidence I have been describing will come in useful.

I think that there are some in the DWP who picture a scenario where your GP has a computerised record of all your contact with the NHS and some feedback from private medicine. The GP then quickly reminds him/her self of the general state of your medical history, quickly fills in a form, attaches any necessary documentation and hands it to a secretary who puts it in the post.

The reality of the state of medical records in even a well-organised practice is so far away from this as to be unrecognisable. In my own case I have moved around the country (though I've never worked abroad, which must really complicate matters). In the process any records of my early years have completely disappeared, as have a couple of years I spent with one rather shambolic practice. Some of the reports from investigations that were done (I remember them) have never been entered. More than once I've said, "I'm not sure what year it was but in the early 80s I saw a specialist who tested for this, and the result was that." The person across the desk has taken a look and said, "Well, there's no record of it here.".

Then you are also reliant on the communication skills of the various specialists. I had a note from one GP apologising for the fact that I had had some investigations, undergone major surgery, followed by a small complication requiring a second op and then a post-surgery infection without my GP ever knowing about any of it. He only discovered when I needed regular visits from the District Nurse.

Then the specialists may have to split their expertise over various sites, and the notes at one site don't get copied to another. Or the notes at one place get entered on to a computer, but the other lot still works on paper and that waits until someone gets round to typing/scanning it up.

None of this need be the fault of any one person, it's just that such a large system, with constantly shifting record-keeping standards and practices, leads to poor communication.

And nobody trusts anybody else. "Why didn't your GP spot that - it's classic?" "Why does that unit want me to refer you to a specialist - I thought they were the specialists!" "How on earth am I supposed to deal with that problem - you ought to be seeing someone else entirely." "What do you mean you've waited 3 months - you should have been given an appointment within a week - they must have sent the paperwork to the wrong department."

The NHS is overwhelmed with bureaucracy, but it also just the fact that modern medicine is very complicated, and so many problems require you to see so many people.

The problem lies in the unrealistic expectations about the efficiency of computerised and non-computerised systems by people who only have a hazy idea of how they work.

That is a charitable point of view. I suspect that some of the idealogues in charge at the DWP have a very good idea what goes on, and are very happy to have all medical evidence by-passed in favour of "evidence" which they pay ATOS to rig.

sardine wrote: »

I have every intention of advising them of the reason why I am doing this. I do not want to be underhand, sly or devious. I just want to see what will happen, given my medical condition, needs and lack of mobility.

Please don't.

[a] You will distort the experiment. If "trying it on to see what will happen" is on your records, then you will get turned down. You will then have no real experience of how the system works, and will have proved nothing. It will not matter whether you are entitled or not - you have admitted that you are not doing it for real. That will be that.

You will add yourself to the list of "the potentially fraudulent". If you do need the system, it will then have a record that you are a chancer.

[c] You will invariably figure in someone's conversation as "Someone who admitted that they didn't need the money, but was just trying it on." That will morph into "Someone who wasn't remotely entitled to the money, but was just trying to work the system." This may be a travesty of what you said, but distortion is what the Daily Mail et al feed off. Don't give them any more food. You will only give aid and comfort to the enemy - which may not matter to you, but does for other claimants with conditions like yours, and who do need the money. Not to mention adding another anecdote for Disability Hate Movement to use.

[d] You will be taking up the time and energy of all the other people who are genuinely going through the system. Your GP has enough trying to help those who really need her/him to fill in those forms. Ditto any specialists. Even the Tribunal staff who are now desperately under pressure and can manage without people running experiments.

If you really can't bring yourself to make - and see through - a genuine claim for yourself, then find someone is a similar situation to yours and try to help them through the system.

sardine wrote: »

I would also add, that, if by any chance they accept my application, I will not take up the offer of extra cash as quite honestly I feel that there are others who are a lot more deserving than I am. It is simply an exercise of seeing first hand, how I am dealt with and how they perceive my entitlement to be.

Take it. Please. If you feel you don't need it then simply funnel it to the Citizen's Advice Bureau, whose funding is being cut and who will need every extra penny to keep welfare rights officers going to help those who don't have your relish for a fight. Or one of the charities attempting to help people in difficult times - your local hospice, for example. They could really do with an extra £50 a month to help fund respite care for people whose own carers are at their limits or beyond. (I lost a good friend to illness which could have been treated earlier, if he had been able to put his wife in respite care for long enough for in-patient investigations.)

sardine wrote: »

This is what the DWP say and accept about my condition - taken from their own handbook :

"People with severe long-term pain (i.e. those on complex analgesic regimes including opiates and likely to be attending pain management clinics) may be restricted in their ability to stand, walk, bend, kneel, rise from a chair/toilet. Marked weight loss and poor muscle bulk will cause additional debility. They may need help with self care or cooking a meal; some may have significant problems in walking. The older person is likely to require more assistance with self-care, attention to diet, supervision of medication and help with toilet needs if diarrhoea is a long-term problem. They may also be prone to falls if they are underweight, frail or taking strong analgesics."

Sounds like you might well qualify. Fill in the forms; set aside a week, if you are ill and tired and in pain - it could well take you that long. Don't give up if you are trying to see how the system really works. You may also feel even more ill, tired, in pain afterwards - it's not a pleasant task. You may also be clinically depressed as well - going over every detail of your problems with everyday life has that effect.

Go for it - but do it for real. Nothing else will be valid. You can always give the money to those who need it.

PS After I saw the preview of this post. It isn't half long - but it's too late for me to edit it down now. I wonder if anyone will get as far as reading this apology. :cheesy:

Richie-from-the-Boro

woodbine wrote: »

when you give the DLA your GP details you are effectively putting him down as a reference,and in my book its only good manners to tell him you have done this.
I don't know about you but usually when i see my GP its about medical problems NOT care/mobility problems,so a timely discussion about these can only work in your favour
of course you can just ignore such advice and take your chances

Good a bit more of the [ only good manners to tell him ] common sense approach, thank you.

Richie-from-the-Boro

deeplyblue, read it, fair critique,

Although this is called a work capability assessment, it is an assessment of incapability. The HCP’s assessment is not concerned with diagnosis or decisions about treatment - the intention is to build up a picture of functional ability and show the practical effects of that condition, in order to allow the DWP Decision Maker to understand what the claimant can do. Atos are simply concerned with fulfilling the narrow criteria presented by the WCA, the findings of which are then presented to the DWP and used to judge whether a sick or disabled claimant is fit for work or not.

If you can ring up for your appointment time you can do 60 hours in a call centre :mad:

Trialia

Sadly, deeplyblue, you're right about the state of computer records.

I moved to a new doctor when I moved house in April last year, and my previous GP managed to lose my entire medical record - 24 years worth of recurring health problems both mental and physical, referrals, treatments and diagnoses - and when you have as many of those as I've had, it's nearly catastrophic to lose the majority of the documentation, especially when the patient has a good chunk of memory loss, as I do. I'm dreading my next ATOS assessment for just that reason - that said, fortunately, I did get my final formal diagnosis of EDS-III with my new GP, so at least she has that and the subsequent referrals. So frustrating.

deeplyblue

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

deeplyblue, read it, fair critique,

Although this is called a work capability assessment, it is an assessment of incapability.

I have been assuming that sardine was talking about applying for DLA. I know that the WCA for ESA is much worse - and I'd have further advice if that were the case. However, even the non-compulsory but usual medical with a real doctor is a non-trivial exercise.

Richie-from-the-Boro

deeplyblue wrote: »

I have been assuming that sardine was talking about applying for DLA. I know that the WCA for ESA is much worse - and I'd have further advice if that were the case. However, even the non-compulsory but usual medical with a real doctor is a non-trivial exercise.

I agree, no medical is trivial, disables people are defeated by a system that frequently refuses to recognise their illness. Magnitudes of additional stress caused by ATOS medicals and the new regulations will not do anything to help improve their condition. I was referring to the oft used quote "the WCA was designed to be a first positive step towards work for most people". It's no such thing, the very fact that 40% of appeals against IWCA'a are upheld shows that something is grievously wrong with the assessment critera.

The intention of the WCA is narrowly focused presenting the DWP's dis-empowered decision making droid with a picture of functional ability and show the practical effects of that condition. Job Centre Plus decision-makers almost never reverse any decision made by ATOS, this makes decision makers ' rubber stampers '. The presentation to the decisiaon maker of a simple version of this claimant can / can not do etc and not focusing solely on what health condition or the disability prevents the individual from doing a task. Claimants attending the expected medical which looks at their illness or impairment get no such thing, there is no medical examination. It is only intended to imperfectly assess their theoretical functional capability.