aYOUR correspondent, Dr Hambly (May 4), a director of Ayrshire Doctors on Call, can be assured that my only agenda in trying to get improvements in ADOC is the interests of my constituents, and there have been many other critics of ADOC including councillors, the health council, community councils, and patients.
However, for him to say the service started well is far from the truth. It was set up by GPs without even informing patients, let alone consulting them. As a result of this administrative blunder almost no-one knew the new central helpline number.
Then when criticisms arose those running the scheme were so complacent and arrogant they refused to attend meetings to discuss concerns or to answer criticisms. Indeed, the chief executive didn't even reply to correspondence from the local health council, the statutory NHS watchdog, inviting him to meet to discuss the scheme.
In relation to the two infants who died, blame for their deaths has not been attributed to individual GPs or ADOC. However, it would have been at the very least reassuring for their parents had they been able at least to talk to a GP, let alone have a GP turn out, to three urgent calls made to the service.
If Dr Hambly had even bothered to come to meetings on the subject, he would have heard that I support the principle of a GPs' co-operative. And where it is run efficiently, with direct access to GPs over the phone and guaranteed call-outs in urgent cases, it is proving successful.
But in Ayrshire complacency and arrogance have meant that genuine criticisms have not been taken on board and further blunders have occurred. That is why the health board set up its review which has made many proposals on how ADOC can and should be improved.
It would be more helpful if Dr Hambly or one of his fellow directors would let us know that ADOC will immediately accept these recommendations so that the service really is as good as it can be.
George Foulkes, MP,
House of Commons. May 5.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article