| Home | Main Page | Campaigns | Manifesto | Counties | Media | On-Line Radio | Archives | Photos Page |
Motorists, Equity & Unity Party
Published and promoted by the Motorists Equity & Unity Party, 123B Southfield, POLEGATE BN26 5LZ
Letters to the Telegraph
Training NHS nurses to become Assistant General Practitioners
The latest pronouncement from the Health Secretary mooting the possibility of nurses and pharmacists issuing prescriptions raises many issues. The following is a copy of letter to the Daily Telegraph (15th November, 2005) from the M.E. & U. Party policy unit:
“Sir, your contributor, Dr David Kitson (letters, 18th Nov) suggests that it is perfectly safe for nurses to prescribe drugs because they are experienced, and have been given extra training. I think that it should be pointed out that the extra training that has been suggested by the government lasts for 37 days. I don't honestly think that 37 days is sufficient time to learn about diagnosis of diseases and the need for the knowledge of side effects with the preponderance of drugs available at this time. On the other hand pharmacists are fully aware of all these factors and therefore in a much better position to prescribe for common conditions. It would be far better to train experienced nurses (SRN's) to become Assistant General Practitioners over a period of 18 months/2 years to fill the gap in the GP arena, where they would practice alongside existing GP's and consequently able to refer patients whose presenting condition is beyond their expertise due to lack of experience in certain disciplines. We already have the situation where GP's refer their patients to Consultants which is another natural progression in the treatment of patients. The AGP's would have that safety net and the patient's position would be less precarious in the treatment chain. To allow nurses to prescribe for anything more than very basic ailments is not recommended. (name and address supplied)”
“Sir, your contributor, Dr David Kitson (letters, 18th Nov) suggests that it is perfectly safe for nurses to prescribe drugs because they are experienced, and have been given extra training. I think that it should be pointed out that the extra training that has been suggested by the government lasts for 37 days. I don't honestly think that 37 days is sufficient time to learn about diagnosis of diseases and the need for the knowledge of side effects with the preponderance of drugs available at this time. On the other hand pharmacists are fully aware of all these factors and therefore in a much better position to prescribe for common conditions. It would be far better to train experienced nurses (SRN's) to become Assistant General Practitioners over a period of 18 months/2 years to fill the gap in the GP arena, where they would practice alongside existing GP's and consequently able to refer patients whose presenting condition is beyond their expertise due to lack of experience in certain disciplines. We already have the situation where GP's refer their patients to Consultants which is another natural progression in the treatment of patients. The AGP's would have that safety net and the patient's position would be less precarious in the treatment chain. To allow nurses to prescribe for anything more than very basic ailments is not recommended. (name and address supplied)”
The advantage with the introduction of AGP’s are as follows: -
2. Helping to retain nurses within the NHS rather than migrating to the private sector or emigrating to other countries such as the USA.
3. Filling the gap in the present NHS GP provision, at the same time taking some of the burden (dealing with minor health problems) from the GP to the AGP. A natural progression in the Health chain - AGP -> GP -> Consultant.
2. Helping to retain nurses within the NHS rather than migrating to the private sector or emigrating to other countries such as the USA.
3. Filling the gap in the present NHS GP provision, at the same time taking some of the burden (dealing with minor health problems) from the GP to the AGP. A natural progression in the Health chain -
Comment
Copy of letter published in the Daily Telegraph, Friday, 18th November 2005
Council Tax Payers in the South-East Region Robbed
Sir - It is about time we were allowed to invest more of our residents' money to keep our economic engine-room firing.
The South-East provides the Exchequer with £18 billion every year, which is redistributed to other parts of the country, but we also need to invest in the public services and infrastructure needed to support more than half a million new homes planned to be built over the next 20 years.
Local government in the South-East receives less government support than any other region, with grant spending per head £190 below the English average. The Government is rushing through changes to council funding, which will take even more money from the South-East. Government grant for all services, other than schools, is set to increase by just 0.7 per cent, which leaves counties in the South-East with a £300 million black hole.
In Surrey, council taxpayers contribute £1 for every £2 spent by their councils. In the North, council taxpayers have to find just £1 out of every £4 spent because the Government provides the other £3.
Not all areas in the South-East can afford to support the high levels of council tax demanded by the Government. Average earnings in East Sussex are lower than in the North-East, while public service costs across the South-East are high because of our proximity to London.
The Government and its agencies keep telling us to spend more money. If we were to do everything the Government says, council tax would have to rise by more than 10 per cent - double the level at which the Government will cap council spending.
Our record of delivering efficient services is second to none, but if ministers walk away from their responsibilities, homeowners may be left paying bigger council tax bills and facing cuts to vital services, which will reduce the care we provide to vulnerable children, care-home places for the elderly, and road maintenance.
Keith Mitchell, Chairman of South-East County Leaders
David Shakespeare, Leader, Buckinghamshire
Peter Jones, Leader, East Sussex
Lord Hanningfield, Leader, Essex
Ken Thornber, Leader, Hampshire
Robert Ellis, Leader, Hertfordshire
Andy Sutton, Leader, Isle of Wight
Paul Carter, Leader, Kent
Nick Skellett, Leader, Surrey
Henry Smith, Leader, West Sussex
The South-
Local government in the South-
In Surrey, council taxpayers contribute £1 for every £2 spent by their councils. In the North, council taxpayers have to find just £1 out of every £4 spent because the Government provides the other £3.
Not all areas in the South-
The Government and its agencies keep telling us to spend more money. If we were to do everything the Government says, council tax would have to rise by more than 10 per cent -
Our record of delivering efficient services is second to none, but if ministers walk away from their responsibilities, homeowners may be left paying bigger council tax bills and facing cuts to vital services, which will reduce the care we provide to vulnerable children, care-
Peter Jones, Leader, East Sussex
Lord Hanningfield, Leader, Essex
Ken Thornber, Leader, Hampshire
Robert Ellis, Leader, Hertfordshire
Andy Sutton, Leader, Isle of Wight
Paul Carter, Leader, Kent
Nick Skellett, Leader, Surrey
Henry Smith, Leader, West Sussex
Improving the infrastructure of our national road system &
Encouraging better driving . Letter submitted to Daily Telegraph 2nd Dec
Encouraging better driving . Letter submitted to Daily Telegraph 2nd Dec
Sir, your contributor Malcolm Turner (letters, 2nd Dec) highlights an ever more worsening situation on our roads. The Secretary of State for Transport has warned us recently that we are heading for "Gridlock". It would appear that his solution is to build another lane on the M25 ! This is tantamount to putting one's head in the sand.
Our problems, as highlighted by Mr Turner are congestion and the need for measures to combat the situation now, urgently, before it gets even worse. Money should be made available for the construction of "light vehicle underpasses" as in Le Havre in France in order to reduce the volume of traffic at roundabouts and thereby improve traffic flow. The advantage with these underpasses is that the cost is much less than for a standard underpass which has to cater for all types of vehicles. Since the ratio of private cars and small vans to large vehicles is approximately 3:1 this will, at a stroke reduce the traffic entering roundabouts by 66%. Of course, if a driver wishes to leave the major road then they would be obliged to use the roundabout, but this would still mean a marked reduction in traffic using the roundabout. This measure could be introduced at all bottlenecks on our road systems across the country. This is where the Secretary of State for Transport should be concentrating his efforts, not on the widening of motorways.
The other factor that needs serious consideration is the requirements in order to obtain a driving licence. If Alistair Darling is correct in his assessment that we are heading for "Gridlock" then surely one of the measures that he could introduce with the stroke of his pen is a more demanding driving test ! We suggest that any driver starting out on our road networks in the 21st century should be required to reach the same degree of competence as an HGV or Public Service Vehicle driver. In other words, skid pans, colour blindness tests, and adequate reaction tests to ensure that all drivers entering the fray will be genuinely capable of interacting with others safely and without adding to our daily reports on the radio of accidents on the safest part of the network, i.e. the motorways.
