Complaint to the ASA about ‘as one’

 

This is the website. https://www.betterasone.co.uk/how-it-works/

It’s very sad to see such a poor description and understanding of general practice.

The description of ‘how it works’ on the URL I’ve posted features a time line of ‘normal treatment’ for patients after they have seen their GP.
It claims that it takes
-a week to get a GP appointment
-the GP treating ‘non urgent’ symptoms by ‘returning in a week or two to see if things have improved’
-meeting again and ‘this time perhaps a prescription’
-another meeting to review progress
-then another appointment where the GP might refer
- and the GP may not refer to the right person because of ‘limited connections’.

I find this
1) factually incorrect. ‘normal’ practice is that GPs will refer as appropriate when patients require it. That could be at the first appointment. Prescriptions and holding measures are not used to delay referral but because many conditions resolve themselves and don’t require referral. The ‘normal’ course of action by GPs is presented misleadingly as on of inaction. This is wrong factually, and is scaremongering and misleading.
2) It does not take a week to get an appointment; many surgeries offer ‘on the day’ or telephone appointments and all will see urgent cases on the day. It is misleading to suggest that all patients must normally wait a week.
3) The ‘normal’ treatment of GPs for patients claims that GPs have inadequate knowledge of specialists locally. This is incorrect, misleading and alarmist nonsense.
4) There is a supposition that referral is delayed by prescriptions. This is not based in fact.
5) Diagnosis and tests appear to be only available once referred. This is incorrect. Many diagnoses don’t need tests and are performed by the GP. Many tests can be provided in primary care.

In summary this is a misleading advert full of false premise and I would be grateful for your urgent attention to it.
many thanks.

6 Responses to “Complaint to the ASA about ‘as one’”

  1. Martin McCloskey March 30, 2014 at 12:29 am #

    Should someone responsible be referred to GMC re frightening patients with false information and denigrating professional colleagues?

  2. sam dawlatly March 30, 2014 at 7:38 am #

    Would it help if I complained too? This place is based about a mile from my home and spitting distance from where I was a registrar. Also makes no mention of the over investigating purely biological approach taken in secondary care…

    • Samir Dawlatly April 2, 2014 at 9:20 pm #

      According to ASA website they don’t want multiple complaints about the same thing, as it can slow down their investigation…

      • Paul Turner April 3, 2014 at 7:22 am #

        Intriguing- misleading doesn’t even begin to cover it. How about supposedly being able to get people seen within the NHS for treatment ? Short-circuiting? How does that work? Consultant triage team sounds like it works well for barndoor problems. Do these specialists know that approx 50% of first consultations with specialists are for medically unexplained symptoms? This breeds mistrust of the nhs with every line.

      • Paul Turner April 3, 2014 at 7:22 am #

        Intriguing- misleading doesn’t even begin to cover it. How about supposedly being able to get people seen within the NHS for treatment ? Short-circuiting? How does that work? Consultant triage team sounds like it works well for barndoor problems. Do these specialists know that approx 50% of first consultations with specialists are for medically unexplained symptoms? This breeds mistrust of the nhs with every line.

  3. Jack July 28, 2014 at 7:51 am #

    As a practice maanger for the last 18 years and someone who has gone through regular front line reorganisations, I am appalled at the lack of understanding with the current proposals. We are all aware of the need to reduce cost and continously find more effcient ways to work but dismatling the PCT’s to put in place many other smaller organistions is a serious mistake. The real reason PCT’s failed to engage GP’s is because they have been simply carrying out governmant policy, most of which has been designed to make doctors do tasks that take them away from caring for the patient in front of them. I can provide many examples of this. I was a PEC member for several years an dsaw first hand the frustation of doctors whe were engaged but unable to change policy and frequently overridden by PCT Chief Exec. Most schemes passed down came with no extra funding and were clearly designed to win votes rather than improve life. I am fed up with the DOH constantly telling us what patients want without concentrating on what they actually need .All the cost and confusion with this reorganisation coud have been saved by keeping the PCT’s and allowing those GP’s who have a desire to perhaps through a senate system to actually run the local health system. The PCT commissioners are experts in that area but they are following governament policies. Why not harness their skill; but with clinical leadership, which is what you say is required.Of course this listening excercise will probably be just the same as all others in recent years, you won’t really listen. If you did intend to, why would you allow the NHS Chief Exec email everyone the day after the listening pause was announced, to say we would be continuing the changes as before.I also think most GP’s do not want this change. You may be able to report that most have joined consortia or clusters however this is not seen by the rank and file doctor something they want to do, rather something they must do in order to survive. So no choice there!

Leave a Reply