Is this really how the system works? No checks and balances of any sort?
Timatmarford wrote:
Is this really how the system works? No checks and balances of any sort?
I think what gets uploaded to NHS Spine by the GP is an authorisation
for e.g. 12 months for your particular dose of each medication to be dispensed at a given frequency (28,56 or 84 days).
Your chemist will pull drugs down against that record, no doubt they
prefer doing it electronically to ease the admin.
The prescription form is blank! She normally collects it from her
surgery and fills in the medicines/quantities herself before dropping
off at the Chemist.
Is this really how the system works? No checks and balances of any sort?
On 08/08/2026 12:45, Andy Burns wrote:
Timatmarford wrote:
Is this really how the system works? No checks and balances of any sort?
I think what gets uploaded to NHS Spine by the GP is an authorisation
for e.g. 12 months for your particular dose of each medication to be
dispensed at a given frequency (28,56 or 84 days).
Your chemist will pull drugs down against that record, no doubt they
prefer doing it electronically to ease the admin.
OK Andy. That makes some sense. Seems to assume the patient is wise
enough to stop taking the pills at some unspecified time. There used to
be a *review by* note on my prescription which was eventually 4 years old!
My wife asked me to print off some duplicate prescription forms! This
led to a discussion how the Chemist knows what to supply. Coupled with a
BBC article about wasted medicine got me wondering how the system
actually works.
I have 4 pills linked to my age and Prostate and order these on line
through an NHS site. Originally Vision on Line services (2015) now nhsapp.service....I assumed this was linked in some way to my medical practice.
The prescription form is blank! She normally collects it from her
surgery and fills in the medicines/quantities herself before dropping
off at the Chemist.
Is this really how the system works? No checks and balances of any sort?
I suppose the nominated Chemist may have access to some master list to
ensure the items have been prescribed at some time in the past but this
does seem a recipe for waste and potential harm.
On 08/08/2026 12:31, Timatmarford wrote:
The prescription form is blank! She normally collects it from her
surgery and fills in the medicines/quantities herself before dropping
off at the Chemist.
Is this really how the system works? No checks and balances of any sort?
Not here it isn't, My GP is the final arbiter of prescribing, even if
its been recommended by a hospital consultant.
I don't use online or a chemist because the GP has a dispensary, and is
a mile down the hill...
..I am responsible for re-ordering by ticking boxes on the 'next prescription' form, and the cocktail gets a phone call from a pharmacist
to review every 6 months. along with an annual lung function test and various blood test at various times throughout the year.
I take about 9 pills a day plus other items on an irregular basis
On 08/08/2026 12:52, Timatmarford wrote:
On 08/08/2026 12:45, Andy Burns wrote:
Timatmarford wrote:
Is this really how the system works? No checks and balances of any
sort?
I think what gets uploaded to NHS Spine by the GP is an authorisation
for e.g. 12 months for your particular dose of each medication to be
dispensed at a given frequency (28,56 or 84 days).
Your chemist will pull drugs down against that record, no doubt they
prefer doing it electronically to ease the admin.
OK Andy. That makes some sense. Seems to assume the patient is wise
enough to stop taking the pills at some unspecified time. There used
to be a *review by* note on my prescription which was eventually 4
years old!
You should be in touch with at least a pharmacist. at least annually
I have come to sympathise with a poster who whinged about difficulty
picking up individual pills. Minor moistening of the finger tips is a cure:-)
On 08/08/2026 13:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 08/08/2026 12:52, Timatmarford wrote:
On 08/08/2026 12:45, Andy Burns wrote:
Timatmarford wrote:
Is this really how the system works? No checks and balances of any
sort?
I think what gets uploaded to NHS Spine by the GP is an
authorisation for e.g. 12 months for your particular dose of each
medication to be dispensed at a given frequency (28,56 or 84 days).
Your chemist will pull drugs down against that record, no doubt they
prefer doing it electronically to ease the admin.
OK Andy. That makes some sense. Seems to assume the patient is wise
enough to stop taking the pills at some unspecified time. There used
to be a *review by* note on my prescription which was eventually 4
years old!
You should be in touch with at least a pharmacist. at least annually
On my repeat prescriptions and at least once a year is a note stating
that they will not be issued again without a review being undertaken. In
my case it a blood test followed by a review of te results being
undertaken by medical staff and signed off by doctor. My GP practice
employs a full time pharmacist, not for dispensing drugs but for
reviewing existing (repeat) prescriptions. In my experience and in my
area blood test results are available for me to see on-line within a
couple of days, including some basic review notes. My last routine
review blood test showed that I had a deficiency in one area and this resulted in the practice pharmacist phoning me on my mobile with some
advice and a follow up blood test.
On 08/08/2026 13:37, Timatmarford wrote:
I have come to sympathise with a poster who whinged about difficulty
picking up individual pills. Minor moistening of the finger tips is a
cure:-)
The problem I have is one of my pills is it is only marginally larger
than the size of a pin head and pressing them out of the package often causes them to fly off in a random direction.
As for wetting the finger tips I also take one pill that has a tenancy
to dissolve immediately on contact with moisture. It is also very
bitter. Failure to swallow it immediately with the first swallow of
water leaves an horrible taste in my mouth for many minutes.
On 08/08/2026 13:37, Timatmarford wrote:
I have come to sympathise with a poster who whinged about difficulty
picking up individual pills. Minor moistening of the finger tips is a
cure:-)
The problem I have is one of my pills is it is only marginally larger
than the size of a pin head and pressing them out of the package often causes them to fly off in a random direction.
As for wetting the finger tips I also take one pill that has a tenancy
to dissolve immediately on contact with moisture. It is also very
bitter. Failure to swallow it immediately with the first swallow of
water leaves an horrible taste in my mouth for many minutes.
On 08/08/2026 16:50, alan_m wrote:
On 08/08/2026 13:37, Timatmarford wrote:
I have come to sympathise with a poster who whinged about difficulty
picking up individual pills. Minor moistening of the finger tips is a
cure:-)
The problem I have is one of my pills is it is only marginally larger
than the size of a pin head and pressing them out of the package often
causes them to fly off in a random direction.
As for wetting the finger tips I also take one pill that has a tenancy
to dissolve immediately on contact with moisture. It is also very
bitter. Failure to swallow it immediately with the first swallow of
water leaves an horrible taste in my mouth for many minutes.
I have that problem sometimes.
Many pharmaceutical companies film-coat their tablets to avoid this
problem, but with generic prescribing I often get tablets which are uncoated.
All statins are bitter, and so it seems is Amlodipine.
The problem I have is one of my pills is it is only marginally larger
than the size of a pin head and pressing them out of the package often causes them to fly off in a random direction.
As for wetting the finger tips I also take one pill that has a tenancy
to dissolve immediately on contact with moisture. It is also very
bitter. Failure to swallow it immediately with the first swallow of
water leaves an horrible taste in my mouth for many minutes.
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote
The problem I have is one of my pills is it is only marginally larger
than the size of a pin head and pressing them out of the package often
causes them to fly off in a random direction.
There are little gadgets that pop the pills off the sheet of pills
into the body of the gadget, so they don't fly anywhere
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2As for wetting the finger tips I also take one pill that has a tenancy
to dissolve immediately on contact with moisture. It is also very
bitter. Failure to swallow it immediately with the first swallow of
water leaves an horrible taste in my mouth for many minutes.
What's the name of the med ?
If its metaprolol which is very bitter and quite small,for blood pressure, it is available in coated formtoo which doesn't have that
problem
On my repeat prescriptions and at least once a year is a note stating
that they will not be issued again without a review being undertaken.
In my case it a blood test followed by a review of te results being undertaken by medical staff and signed off by doctor. My GP practice
employs a full time pharmacist, not for dispensing drugs but for
reviewing existing (repeat) prescriptions.
In my experience and in my
area blood test results are available for me to see on-line within a
couple of days, including some basic review notes.
My last routine
review blood test showed that I had a deficiency in one area and this resulted in the practice pharmacist phoning me on my mobile with some
advice and a follow up blood test.
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On my repeat prescriptions and at least once a year is a note stating
that they will not be issued again without a review being undertaken.
In my case it a blood test followed by a review of te results being
undertaken by medical staff and signed off by doctor. My GP practice
employs a full time pharmacist, not for dispensing drugs but for
reviewing existing (repeat) prescriptions.
Similarly with my GP practice regarding a full-time pharmacist.
IrCOd been taken off a medication (because it was rCOa very old medicationrCO)
with unfortunate but foreseeable consequences, which I notified the surgery about.
The pharmacist rang me to offer me an alternate medication, which I
declined on the grounds that it was red-flagged by NIHCE because of an interaction with another medication IrCOm on. DonrCOt the medical professionals
read a patients notes?
The second medication on offer had a 1 in 100 chance of giving me a fatal heart attack. I declined this one on the grounds that my father and brother died early of sudden fatal heart attacks. This information is in my patient notes.
The final one on offer carried a 1 in 10 chance of inducing a particular
form of cancer, which happened to kill my mother. This is in my patient notes. I declined this medication, and when, doubtless frustrated that he couldnrCOt bamboozle me into taking what was on offer, he dismissively said rCYBut thererCOs a 9 in 10 chance you wonrCOt get itrCY. I laughed and said something like rCYIs that what you think is a persuasive response?rCY and the conversation ended there. IrCOm now back on my old-fashioned medication.
In my experience and in my
area blood test results are available for me to see on-line within a
couple of days, including some basic review notes.
If I have a blood test in the morning, the results are in my surgery that afternoon, and I can access them online. This gives me a valuable heads-up
on what they might want to follow up, so I can get my ducks lined up in
order to reject whatever simplistic or dismissive approach they want to
take to any apparent problems.
Oh, and they donrCOt seem to realise I can see my data online, including their notes. They really need to take a course in note-writing, including
how to phrase things with some tact. When I told my chiropractor (who has consultant surgeons on her patient list) about one such note, she was absolutely appalled.
My last routine
review blood test showed that I had a deficiency in one area and this
resulted in the practice pharmacist phoning me on my mobile with some
advice and a follow up blood test.
My most recent episode concerned a blood test, and I was contacted by a receptionist to make an appointment for a repeat in two months time, but
with no explanation. Naturally, this made me look up my results, which
showed abnormalities in three areas. It took a very short time to realise that these three areas each had three blood markers, but one was common to each area, and it was this that was over the top.
Some research and a chance remark by my better half pointed to a possible simple cause among a whole host of really unpleasant ones. An everyday dietary supplement was ordered, leaving me with seven weeks for it to take effect. After that time the repeat test showed the relevant marker was now well in the normal range. No-one from the surgery called to ask how IrCOd done it, just like when I got the statins hard-sell call but my own supplementation brought cholesterol levels down and well into the normal range.
All in all, IrCOm not impressed with the medical profession at primary level, even down to the displayed levels of reading, writing, and inter-personal skills.
On 09/08/2026 10:11, Spike wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:We should employ a know-all clever cunt like you to go through all the
On my repeat prescriptions and at least once a year is a note stating
that they will not be issued again without a review being undertaken.
In my case it a blood test followed by a review of te results being
undertaken by medical staff and signed off by doctor. My GP practice
employs a full time pharmacist, not for dispensing drugs but for
reviewing existing (repeat) prescriptions.
Similarly with my GP practice regarding a full-time pharmacist.
IrCOd been taken off a medication (because it was rCOa very old medicationrCO)
with unfortunate but foreseeable consequences, which I notified the surgery >> about.
The pharmacist rang me to offer me an alternate medication, which I
declined on the grounds that it was red-flagged by NIHCE because of an
interaction with another medication IrCOm on. DonrCOt the medical professionals
read a patients notes?
The second medication on offer had a 1 in 100 chance of giving me a fatal
heart attack. I declined this one on the grounds that my father and brother >> died early of sudden fatal heart attacks. This information is in my patient >> notes.
The final one on offer carried a 1 in 10 chance of inducing a particular
form of cancer, which happened to kill my mother. This is in my patient
notes. I declined this medication, and when, doubtless frustrated that he
couldnrCOt bamboozle me into taking what was on offer, he dismissively said >> rCYBut thererCOs a 9 in 10 chance you wonrCOt get itrCY. I laughed and said >> something like rCYIs that what you think is a persuasive response?rCY and the
conversation ended there. IrCOm now back on my old-fashioned medication.
In my experience and in my
area blood test results are available for me to see on-line within a
couple of days, including some basic review notes.
If I have a blood test in the morning, the results are in my surgery that
afternoon, and I can access them online. This gives me a valuable heads-up >> on what they might want to follow up, so I can get my ducks lined up in
order to reject whatever simplistic or dismissive approach they want to
take to any apparent problems.
Oh, and they donrCOt seem to realise I can see my data online, including
their notes. They really need to take a course in note-writing, including
how to phrase things with some tact. When I told my chiropractor (who has
consultant surgeons on her patient list) about one such note, she was
absolutely appalled.
My last routine
review blood test showed that I had a deficiency in one area and this
resulted in the practice pharmacist phoning me on my mobile with some
advice and a follow up blood test.
My most recent episode concerned a blood test, and I was contacted by a
receptionist to make an appointment for a repeat in two months time, but
with no explanation. Naturally, this made me look up my results, which
showed abnormalities in three areas. It took a very short time to realise
that these three areas each had three blood markers, but one was common to >> each area, and it was this that was over the top.
Some research and a chance remark by my better half pointed to a possible
simple cause among a whole host of really unpleasant ones. An everyday
dietary supplement was ordered, leaving me with seven weeks for it to take >> effect. After that time the repeat test showed the relevant marker was now >> well in the normal range. No-one from the surgery called to ask how IrCOd
done it, just like when I got the statins hard-sell call but my own
supplementation brought cholesterol levels down and well into the normal
range.
All in all, IrCOm not impressed with the medical profession at primary level,
even down to the displayed levels of reading, writing, and inter-personal
skills.
NHS results, you'd save us a fortune on incorrect prescribing.
On 08/08/2026 12:31, Timatmarford wrote:
The prescription form is blank! She normally collects it from her
surgery and fills in the medicines/quantities herself before dropping
off at the Chemist.
Is this really how the system works? No checks and balances of any sort?
Not here it isn't, My GP is the final arbiter of prescribing, even if
its been recommended by a hospital consultant.
I don't use online or a chemist because the GP has a dispensary, and is
a mile down the hill...
..I am responsible for re-ordering by ticking boxes on the 'next prescription' form, and the cocktail gets a phone call from a pharmacist
to review every 6 months. along with an annual lung function test and various blood test at various times throughout the year.
I take about 9 pills a day plus other items on an irregular basis
We should employ a know-all clever cunt like you to go through all the
NHS results, you'd save us a fortune on incorrect prescribing.
He's probably not wrong though (speaking as a retired doctor).
All in all, IrCOm not impressed with the medical profession at primary level, even down to the displayed levels of reading, writing, and inter-personal skills.
On 09/08/2026 10:11, Spike wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:We should employ a know-all clever cunt like you to go through all the
On my repeat prescriptions and at least once a year is a note stating
that they will not be issued again without a review being undertaken.
In my case it a blood test followed by a review of te results being
undertaken by medical staff and signed off by doctor. My GP practice
employs a full time pharmacist, not for dispensing drugs but for
reviewing existing (repeat) prescriptions.
Similarly with my GP practice regarding a full-time pharmacist.
IrCOd been taken off a medication (because it was rCOa very old medicationrCO)
with unfortunate but foreseeable consequences, which I notified the
surgery
about.
The pharmacist rang me to offer me an alternate medication, which I
declined on the grounds that it was red-flagged by NIHCE because of an
interaction with another medication IrCOm on. DonrCOt the medical
professionals
read a patients notes?
The second medication on offer had a 1 in 100 chance of giving me a fatal
heart attack. I declined this one on the grounds that my father and
brother
died early of sudden fatal heart attacks. This information is in my
patient
notes.
The final one on offer carried a 1 in 10 chance of inducing a particular
form of cancer, which happened to kill my mother. This is in my patient
notes. I declined this medication, and when, doubtless frustrated that he
couldnrCOt bamboozle me into taking what was on offer, he dismissively said >> rCYBut thererCOs a 9 in 10 chance you wonrCOt get itrCY. I laughed and said >> something like rCYIs that what you think is a persuasive response?rCY and the
conversation ended there. IrCOm now back on my old-fashioned medication.
In my experience and in my
area blood test results are available for me to see on-line within a
couple of days, including some basic review notes.
If I have a blood test in the morning, the results are in my surgery that
afternoon, and I can access them online. This gives me a valuable
heads-up
on what they might want to follow up, so I can get my ducks lined up in
order to reject whatever simplistic or dismissive approach they want to
take to any apparent problems.
Oh, and they donrCOt seem to realise I can see my data online, including
their notes. They really need to take a course in note-writing, including
how to phrase things with some tact. When I told my chiropractor (who has
consultant surgeons on her patient list) about one such note, she was
absolutely appalled.
My last routine
review blood test showed that I had a deficiency in one area and this
resulted in the practice pharmacist phoning me on my mobile with some
advice and a follow up blood test.
My most recent episode concerned a blood test, and I was contacted by a
receptionist to make an appointment for a repeat in two months time, but
with no explanation. Naturally, this made me look up my results, which
showed abnormalities in three areas. It took a very short time to realise
that these three areas each had three blood markers, but one was
common to
each area, and it was this that was over the top.
Some research and a chance remark by my better half pointed to a possible
simple cause among a whole host of really unpleasant ones. An everyday
dietary supplement was ordered, leaving me with seven weeks for it to
take
effect. After that time the repeat test showed the relevant marker was
now
well in the normal range. No-one from the surgery called to ask how IrCOd
done it, just like when I got the statins hard-sell call but my own
supplementation brought cholesterol levels down and well into the normal
range.
All in all, IrCOm not impressed with the medical profession at primary
level,
even down to the displayed levels of reading, writing, and inter-personal
skills.
NHS results, you'd save us a fortune on incorrect prescribing.
On 9 Aug 2026 at 11:06:46 BST, "mm0fmf" <none@invalid.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 10:11, Spike wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:We should employ a know-all clever cunt like you to go through all the
On my repeat prescriptions and at least once a year is a note stating
that they will not be issued again without a review being undertaken.
In my case it a blood test followed by a review of te results being
undertaken by medical staff and signed off by doctor. My GP practice
employs a full time pharmacist, not for dispensing drugs but for
reviewing existing (repeat) prescriptions.
Similarly with my GP practice regarding a full-time pharmacist.
IrCOd been taken off a medication (because it was rCOa very old medicationrCO)
with unfortunate but foreseeable consequences, which I notified the surgery >>> about.
The pharmacist rang me to offer me an alternate medication, which I
declined on the grounds that it was red-flagged by NIHCE because of an
interaction with another medication IrCOm on. DonrCOt the medical professionals
read a patients notes?
The second medication on offer had a 1 in 100 chance of giving me a fatal >>> heart attack. I declined this one on the grounds that my father and brother >>> died early of sudden fatal heart attacks. This information is in my patient >>> notes.
The final one on offer carried a 1 in 10 chance of inducing a particular >>> form of cancer, which happened to kill my mother. This is in my patient
notes. I declined this medication, and when, doubtless frustrated that he >>> couldnrCOt bamboozle me into taking what was on offer, he dismissively said >>> rCYBut thererCOs a 9 in 10 chance you wonrCOt get itrCY. I laughed and said >>> something like rCYIs that what you think is a persuasive response?rCY and the
conversation ended there. IrCOm now back on my old-fashioned medication. >>>
In my experience and in my
area blood test results are available for me to see on-line within a
couple of days, including some basic review notes.
If I have a blood test in the morning, the results are in my surgery that >>> afternoon, and I can access them online. This gives me a valuable heads-up >>> on what they might want to follow up, so I can get my ducks lined up in
order to reject whatever simplistic or dismissive approach they want to
take to any apparent problems.
Oh, and they donrCOt seem to realise I can see my data online, including >>> their notes. They really need to take a course in note-writing, including >>> how to phrase things with some tact. When I told my chiropractor (who has >>> consultant surgeons on her patient list) about one such note, she was
absolutely appalled.
My last routine
review blood test showed that I had a deficiency in one area and this
resulted in the practice pharmacist phoning me on my mobile with some
advice and a follow up blood test.
My most recent episode concerned a blood test, and I was contacted by a
receptionist to make an appointment for a repeat in two months time, but >>> with no explanation. Naturally, this made me look up my results, which
showed abnormalities in three areas. It took a very short time to realise >>> that these three areas each had three blood markers, but one was common to >>> each area, and it was this that was over the top.
Some research and a chance remark by my better half pointed to a possible >>> simple cause among a whole host of really unpleasant ones. An everyday
dietary supplement was ordered, leaving me with seven weeks for it to take >>> effect. After that time the repeat test showed the relevant marker was now >>> well in the normal range. No-one from the surgery called to ask how IrCOd >>> done it, just like when I got the statins hard-sell call but my own
supplementation brought cholesterol levels down and well into the normal >>> range.
All in all, IrCOm not impressed with the medical profession at primary level,
even down to the displayed levels of reading, writing, and inter-personal >>> skills.
NHS results, you'd save us a fortune on incorrect prescribing.
He's probably not wrong though (speaking as a retired doctor).
On 8/9/26 11:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
We should employ a know-all clever cunt like you to go through all the
NHS results, you'd save us a fortune on incorrect prescribing.
He's probably not wrong though (speaking as a retired doctor).
Speaking as a retired IT professional, and currently still a practising know-all,-a it sounds very like the NHS should be investing in computer systems to give good prescribing advice.
On 08/08/2026 16:50, alan_m wrote:
On 08/08/2026 13:37, Timatmarford wrote:
I have come to sympathise with a poster who whinged about
difficulty picking up individual pills. Minor moistening of the
finger tips is a cure:-)
The problem I have is one of my pills is it is only marginallyAlways a problem with LSD microdots. We used to stick them to
larger than the size of a pin head and pressing them out of the
package often causes them to fly off in a random direction.
sellotape
On 09/08/2026 10:11, Spike wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On my repeat prescriptions and at least once a year is a note stating
that they will not be issued again without a review being undertaken.
In my case it a blood test followed by a review of te results being
undertaken by medical staff and signed off by doctor. My GP practice
employs a full time pharmacist, not for dispensing drugs but for
reviewing existing (repeat) prescriptions.
Similarly with my GP practice regarding a full-time pharmacist.
IrCOd been taken off a medication (because it was rCOa very old medicationrCO)
with unfortunate but foreseeable consequences, which I notified the surgery >> about.
The pharmacist rang me to offer me an alternate medication, which I
declined on the grounds that it was red-flagged by NIHCE because of an
interaction with another medication IrCOm on. DonrCOt the medical professionals
read a patients notes?
The second medication on offer had a 1 in 100 chance of giving me a fatal
heart attack. I declined this one on the grounds that my father and brother >> died early of sudden fatal heart attacks. This information is in my patient >> notes.
The final one on offer carried a 1 in 10 chance of inducing a particular
form of cancer, which happened to kill my mother. This is in my patient
notes. I declined this medication, and when, doubtless frustrated that he
couldnrCOt bamboozle me into taking what was on offer, he dismissively said >> rCYBut thererCOs a 9 in 10 chance you wonrCOt get itrCY. I laughed and said >> something like rCYIs that what you think is a persuasive response?rCY and the
conversation ended there. IrCOm now back on my old-fashioned medication.
In my experience and in my
area blood test results are available for me to see on-line within a
couple of days, including some basic review notes.
If I have a blood test in the morning, the results are in my surgery that
afternoon, and I can access them online. This gives me a valuable heads-up >> on what they might want to follow up, so I can get my ducks lined up in
order to reject whatever simplistic or dismissive approach they want to
take to any apparent problems.
Oh, and they donrCOt seem to realise I can see my data online, including
their notes. They really need to take a course in note-writing, including
how to phrase things with some tact. When I told my chiropractor (who has
consultant surgeons on her patient list) about one such note, she was
absolutely appalled.
My last routine
review blood test showed that I had a deficiency in one area and this
resulted in the practice pharmacist phoning me on my mobile with some
advice and a follow up blood test.
My most recent episode concerned a blood test, and I was contacted by a
receptionist to make an appointment for a repeat in two months time, but
with no explanation. Naturally, this made me look up my results, which
showed abnormalities in three areas. It took a very short time to realise
that these three areas each had three blood markers, but one was common to >> each area, and it was this that was over the top.
Some research and a chance remark by my better half pointed to a possible
simple cause among a whole host of really unpleasant ones. An everyday
dietary supplement was ordered, leaving me with seven weeks for it to take >> effect. After that time the repeat test showed the relevant marker was now >> well in the normal range. No-one from the surgery called to ask how IrCOd
done it, just like when I got the statins hard-sell call but my own
supplementation brought cholesterol levels down and well into the normal
range.
All in all, IrCOm not impressed with the medical profession at primary level,
even down to the displayed levels of reading, writing, and inter-personal
skills.
We should employ a know-all clever cunt like you to go through all the
NHS results, you'd save us a fortune on incorrect prescribing.
On Sat, 8 Aug 2026 18:40:22 +0100
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 08/08/2026 16:50, alan_m wrote:
On 08/08/2026 13:37, Timatmarford wrote:Always a problem with LSD microdots. We used to stick them to
I have come to sympathise with a poster who whinged about
difficulty picking up individual pills. Minor moistening of the
finger tips is a cure:-)
The problem I have is one of my pills is it is only marginally
larger than the size of a pin head and pressing them out of the
package often causes them to fly off in a random direction.
sellotape
And swallow the Sellotape as well?
I rather thought that saving a fortune on incorrect prescribing was what
the pharmacist was employed for. As it turned out, I was a cleverer cunt
than him and managed to avoid being compromised by his cavalier attitude to prescribing medications.
My wife asked me to print off some duplicate prescription forms! This
led to a discussion how the Chemist knows what to supply. Coupled with a
BBC article about wasted medicine got me wondering how the system
actually works.
My wife asked me to print off some duplicate prescription forms! This
led to a discussion how the Chemist knows what to supply. Coupled with a
BBC article about wasted medicine got me wondering how the system
actually works.
I have 4 pills linked to my age and Prostate and order these on line
through an NHS site. Originally Vision on Line services (2015) now >nhsapp.service....I assumed this was linked in some way to my medical >practice.
The prescription form is blank! She normally collects it from her
surgery and fills in the medicines/quantities herself before dropping
off at the Chemist.
Is this really how the system works? No checks and balances of any sort?
I suppose the nominated Chemist may have access to some master list to >ensure the items have been prescribed at some time in the past but this
does seem a recipe for waste and potential harm.
On 09/08/2026 11:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Aug 2026 at 11:06:46 BST, "mm0fmf" <none@invalid.com> wrote:
On 09/08/2026 10:11, Spike wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On my repeat prescriptions and at least once a year is a note stating >>>>> that they will not be issued again without a review being undertaken. >>>>> In my case it a blood test followed by a review of te results being
undertaken by medical staff and signed off by doctor. My GP practice >>>>> employs a full time pharmacist, not for dispensing drugs but for
reviewing existing (repeat) prescriptions.
Similarly with my GP practice regarding a full-time pharmacist.
IrCOd been taken off a medication (because it was rCOa very old
medicationrCO)
with unfortunate but foreseeable consequences, which I notified the
surgery
about.
The pharmacist rang me to offer me an alternate medication, which I
declined on the grounds that it was red-flagged by NIHCE because of an >>>> interaction with another medication IrCOm on. DonrCOt the medical
professionals
read a patients notes?
The second medication on offer had a 1 in 100 chance of giving me a
fatal
heart attack. I declined this one on the grounds that my father and
brother
died early of sudden fatal heart attacks. This information is in my
patient
notes.
The final one on offer carried a 1 in 10 chance of inducing a
particular
form of cancer, which happened to kill my mother. This is in my patient >>>> notes. I declined this medication, and when, doubtless frustrated
that he
couldnrCOt bamboozle me into taking what was on offer, he dismissively >>>> said
rCYBut thererCOs a 9 in 10 chance you wonrCOt get itrCY. I laughed and said
something like rCYIs that what you think is a persuasive response?rCY >>>> and the
conversation ended there. IrCOm now back on my old-fashioned medication. >>>>
In my experience and in my
area blood test results are available for me to see on-line within a >>>>> couple of days, including some basic review notes.
If I have a blood test in the morning, the results are in my surgery
that
afternoon, and I can access them online. This gives me a valuable
heads-up
on what they might want to follow up, so I can get my ducks lined up in >>>> order to reject whatever simplistic or dismissive approach they want to >>>> take to any apparent problems.
Oh, and they donrCOt seem to realise I can see my data online, including >>>> their notes. They really need to take a course in note-writing,
including
how to phrase things with some tact. When I told my chiropractor
(who has
consultant surgeons on her patient list) about one such note, she was
absolutely appalled.
My last routine
review blood test showed that I had a deficiency in one area and this >>>>> resulted in the practice pharmacist phoning me on my mobile with some >>>>> advice and a follow up blood test.
No. He is not wrong. It is all down to how conscientious and /or rushedWe should employ a know-all clever cunt like you to go through all the
My most recent episode concerned a blood test, and I was contacted by a >>>> receptionist to make an appointment for a repeat in two months time,
but
with no explanation. Naturally, this made me look up my results, which >>>> showed abnormalities in three areas. It took a very short time to
realise
that these three areas each had three blood markers, but one was
common to
each area, and it was this that was over the top.
Some research and a chance remark by my better half pointed to a
possible
simple cause among a whole host of really unpleasant ones. An everyday >>>> dietary supplement was ordered, leaving me with seven weeks for it
to take
effect. After that time the repeat test showed the relevant marker
was now
well in the normal range. No-one from the surgery called to ask how IrCOd >>>> done it, just like when I got the statins hard-sell call but my own
supplementation brought cholesterol levels down and well into the
normal
range.
All in all, IrCOm not impressed with the medical profession at primary >>>> level,
even down to the displayed levels of reading, writing, and inter-
personal
skills.
NHS results, you'd save us a fortune on incorrect prescribing.
He's probably not wrong though (speaking as a retired doctor).
the doctor is
My current GP is no Dr House, but by golly is she conscientious. And she doesn't talk down to me.
On 8/9/26 11:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
We should employ a know-all clever cunt like you to go through all the
NHS results, you'd save us a fortune on incorrect prescribing.
He's probably not wrong though (speaking as a retired doctor).
Speaking as a retired IT professional, and currently still a practising know-all,-a it sounds very like the NHS should be investing in computer systems to give good prescribing advice.
On Sat, 8 Aug 2026 12:31:38 +0100, Timatmarford <tim@marford.uk.com>
wrote:
My wife asked me to print off some duplicate prescription forms! This
led to a discussion how the Chemist knows what to supply. Coupled with a
BBC article about wasted medicine got me wondering how the system
actually works.
I have 4 pills linked to my age and Prostate and order these on line
through an NHS site. Originally Vision on Line services (2015) now
nhsapp.service....I assumed this was linked in some way to my medical
practice.
The prescription form is blank! She normally collects it from her
surgery and fills in the medicines/quantities herself before dropping
off at the Chemist.
Is this really how the system works? No checks and balances of any sort?
I suppose the nominated Chemist may have access to some master list to
ensure the items have been prescribed at some time in the past but this
does seem a recipe for waste and potential harm.
Your experience and procedure appear to be very different from mine.
I order a repeat prescription useing the NHS app, it is approved by a
doctor and issued to the pharmacist. When I collect a copy of the prescription is included. At intervals, don't remember the last time,
I am asked to complete an online form that essentially determines that
my health is unaltered from the last time, and the prescription is
renewed.
On 8/9/26 11:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
We should employ a know-all clever cunt like you to go through all the
NHS results, you'd save us a fortune on incorrect prescribing.
He's probably not wrong though (speaking as a retired doctor).
Speaking as a retired IT professional, and currently still a practising know-all, it sounds very like the NHS should be investing in computer systems to give good prescribing advice.
On 9 Aug 2026 at 12:07:41 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/9/26 11:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
We should employ a know-all clever cunt like you to go through all the >>>> NHS results, you'd save us a fortune on incorrect prescribing.
He's probably not wrong though (speaking as a retired doctor).
Speaking as a retired IT professional, and currently still a practising
know-all, it sounds very like the NHS should be investing in computer
systems to give good prescribing advice.
They have, over the years, invested very heavily in enriching software firms' shareholders, without any discernible results.
Your experience and procedure appear to be very different from mine.
I order a repeat prescription useing the NHS app, it is approved by a
doctor and issued to the pharmacist. When I collect a copy of the
prescription is included. At intervals, don't remember the last time,
I am asked to complete an online form that essentially determines that
my health is unaltered from the last time, and the prescription is
renewed.
Same here except the Surgery is required (by the health authority) to
review annually, which involves blood tests and a (phone) consultation
with either a GP or their Pharmacist.
On 9 Aug 2026 at 12:07:41 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/9/26 11:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
We should employ a know-all clever cunt like you to go through all the >>>> NHS results, you'd save us a fortune on incorrect prescribing.
He's probably not wrong though (speaking as a retired doctor).
Speaking as a retired IT professional, and currently still a practising
know-all, it sounds very like the NHS should be investing in computer
systems to give good prescribing advice.
They have, over the years, invested very heavily in enriching software firms' shareholders, without any discernible results.
On 10/08/2026 12:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Aug 2026 at 12:07:41 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote: >>Actually that's not *totally* fair..
On 8/9/26 11:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
We should employ a know-all clever cunt like you to go through all the >>>>> NHS results, you'd save us a fortune on incorrect prescribing.
He's probably not wrong though (speaking as a retired doctor).
Speaking as a retired IT professional, and currently still a practising
know-all, it sounds very like the NHS should be investing in computer
systems to give good prescribing advice.
They have, over the years, invested very heavily in enriching software firms'
shareholders, without any discernible results.
And they had to navigate a LOT of security concerns about access to
peoples private medical data
*Most* of my medical records are online. Even "I think my husband has
brain damage" from my ex....Lovely girl. Not an ounce of spite in her...
MOST patient letters are online. Most of the data is shared between the
local hospital and the GP, but Addenbrookes - which I have attended for
some stuff - and Papworth, are not on the same system.
The GPs definitely use some software to check drug inter-reactions.
A lot of notifications arrive by email and/or text message
So really its about halfway there
On Sun, 9 Aug 2026 20:49:32 +0100, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
Your experience and procedure appear to be very different from mine.
I order a repeat prescription useing the NHS app, it is approved by a
doctor and issued to the pharmacist. When I collect a copy of the
prescription is included. At intervals, don't remember the last time,
I am asked to complete an online form that essentially determines that
my health is unaltered from the last time, and the prescription is
renewed.
Same here except the Surgery is required (by the health authority) to
review annually, which involves blood tests and a (phone) consultation
with either a GP or their Pharmacist.
It probably is anually in my case but I don't bother to keep track.
On my repeat prescriptions and at least once a year is a note stating
that they will not be issued again without a review being undertaken. In
my case it a blood test followed by a review of te results being
undertaken by medical staff and signed off by doctor. My GP practice
employs a full time pharmacist, not for dispensing drugs but for
reviewing existing (repeat) prescriptions. In my experience and in my
area blood test results are available for me to see on-line within a
couple of days, including some basic review notes. My last routine
review blood test showed that I had a deficiency in one area and this resulted in the practice pharmacist phoning me on my mobile with some
advice and a follow up blood test.
On 8/10/26 12:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Aug 2026 at 12:07:41 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>
wrote:
On 8/9/26 11:26, Roger Hayter wrote:They have, over the years, invested very heavily in enriching software
We should employ a know-all clever cunt like you to go through all >>>>> the
NHS results, you'd save us a fortune on incorrect prescribing.
He's probably not wrong though (speaking as a retired doctor).
Speaking as a retired IT professional, and currently still a practising
know-all, it sounds very like the NHS should be investing in computer
systems to give good prescribing advice.
firms'
shareholders, without any discernible results.
Software development is expensive. It is only economic at scale.
Someone will get it right eventually. Then everyone will use it.
On 08/08/2026 16:43, alan_m wrote:
On my repeat prescriptions and at least once a year is a note stating
that they will not be issued again without a review being undertaken.
In my case it a blood test followed by a review of te results being
undertaken by medical staff and signed off by doctor. My GP practice
employs a full time pharmacist, not for dispensing drugs but for
reviewing existing (repeat) prescriptions. In my experience and in my
area blood test results are available for me to see on-line within a
couple of days, including some basic review notes. My last routine
review blood test showed that I had a deficiency in one area and this
resulted in the practice pharmacist phoning me on my mobile with some
advice and a follow up blood test.
I'm on repeat prescription of rest-of-life medication following a heart attack and cardiac arrest 15 years ago.
I've never seen an actual prescription, as a piece of paper, because at
all three doctors' practices (changed due to house moves) there is an in-house dispensary so the authorisation goes directly from GP to dispensary, and after I have ordered a new month of tablets using the Patient Access website, all I hear is a text from them a few days later saying "ready for collection". I get a "receipt" confirming what is included (tablet and dose). (*)
My present GP has a "cashpoint-like" machine on the outside wall (so you can use it when the practice is closed). You enter an authorisation code which they text you (different each time) and a minute later, after lots
of whirring, the bag of tablets pops out.
(*) At a previous practice, I was once given a receipt for another patient's drugs, which told me her name and address and what medication
she was on. *Very* bad :-( I played hell with them because it is a very clear breach of GDPR and of good pharmacy practice. When the pharmacist tried to play it down, I lodged an official complaint with the practice manager, saying "take this seriously or my next step will be to contact
the GMC". I stressed that I didn't want to see anyone disciplined - mistakes can occur - but I did want them to take action (training, supervision, second-pair-of-eyes check) to make sure it never happened again. My mum had worked in hospital pharmacy for many years and she
said that anyone who had given paperwork relating to a different patient would have been for the high-jump! She said that even qualified
pharmacists asked for someone - even a "mere" technician - to check
their work... just in case. That was in the days when prescriptions were handwritten in "doctor's handwriting" in Latin - "bds/tds" (bis/ter die sumendum) = 2/3 times a day, "qs" (quantum satis) = as much as is needed (eg instruction on an ointment "apply as much as you need to alleviate
the symptoms")
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 02:18:24 +1000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/10/26 12:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Aug 2026 at 12:07:41 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com>
wrote:
On 8/9/26 11:26, Roger Hayter wrote:-aThey have, over the years, invested very heavily in enriching
We should employ a know-all clever cunt like you to go through all >>>>>> the
NHS results, you'd save us a fortune on incorrect prescribing.
He's probably not wrong though (speaking as a retired doctor).
Speaking as a retired IT professional, and currently still a practising >>>> know-all,-a it sounds very like the NHS should be investing in computer >>>> systems to give good prescribing advice.
software firms'
shareholders, without any discernible results.
Software development is expensive. It is only economic at scale.
Someone-a-a will get it right eventually. Then everyone will use it.
Can't think of any software where that last has ever happened
On 8/11/26 00:13, Rod Speed wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 02:18:24 +1000, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/10/26 12:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Aug 2026 at 12:07:41 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 8/9/26 11:26, Roger Hayter wrote:They have, over the years, invested very heavily in enriching
We should employ a know-all clever cunt like you to go through all >>>>>>> the
NHS results, you'd save us a fortune on incorrect prescribing.
He's probably not wrong though (speaking as a retired doctor).
Speaking as a retired IT professional, and currently still a
practising
know-all, it sounds very like the NHS should be investing in
computer
systems to give good prescribing advice.
software firms'
shareholders, without any discernible results.
Software development is expensive. It is only economic at scale.
Someone will get it right eventually. Then everyone will use it.
Can't think of any software where that last has ever happened
I was being hyperbolic, but you see it with companies like Google,
Amazon.
Stripe is a good example. You probably haven't heard of it,
but it sells software that handles customer payments. When I were a lad everyone wrote their own payment process systems. However, because processing customer payments is largely the same for all systems it
makes sense for one company to do it right and then sell a system to everyone else. It is not practical for everyone to reinvent the wheel. Because Stripe can spread its development cost across thousands of
systems it can afford to spend huge amounts on development, huge amounts
on getting it right. It then becomes very difficult for any new startup software organisation to develop a new product to compete.
If someone employs you as a programmer they wonder why you can't develop are the features Stripe offers, in a few months, they don't appreciate
the massive amount of programmer time Stripe invested in getting where
it is. So, software has a very strong monopolistic tendency.
Even if at the moment there are a few companies competing, if one fails
it isn't possible for a new one to take its place. The number of
competing companies has a tendency to decrease.
It will probably be worse with AI. This is an existential threat.
However, our politicians don't talk about it. They are busy talking
about migrants in boats, early release from prison, or getting us
involved in some foreign war. The UK political system is worse than most countries for distracting the population with trivia.
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 17:41:55 +1000, Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/11/26 00:13, Rod Speed wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 02:18:24 +1000, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/10/26 12:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Aug 2026 at 12:07:41 BST, "Pancho"
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/9/26 11:26, Roger Hayter wrote:-aThey have, over the years, invested very heavily in enriching
We should employ a know-all clever cunt like you to go through >>>>>>>> all the
NHS results, you'd save us a fortune on incorrect prescribing.
He's probably not wrong though (speaking as a retired doctor).
Speaking as a retired IT professional, and currently still a
practising
know-all,-a it sounds very like the NHS should be investing in
computer
systems to give good prescribing advice.
software firms'
shareholders, without any discernible results.
Software development is expensive. It is only economic at scale.
Someone-a-a will get it right eventually. Then everyone will use it.
-aCan't think of any software where that last has ever happened
I was being hyperbolic, but you see it with companies like Google,
Amazon.
Bullshit with EVERYONE USING IT
Stripe is a good example. You probably haven't heard of it,
Wrong
but it sells software that handles customer payments. When I were a
lad everyone wrote their own payment process systems. However, because
processing customer payments is largely the same for all systems it
makes sense for one company to do it right and then sell a system to
everyone else. It is not practical for everyone to reinvent the wheel.
Because Stripe can spread its development cost across thousands of
systems it can afford to spend huge amounts on development, huge
amounts on getting it right. It then becomes very difficult for any
new startup software organisation to develop a new product to compete.
Everyone doesn't use it
If someone employs you as a programmer they wonder why you can't
develop are the features Stripe offers, in a few months, they don't
appreciate the massive amount of programmer time Stripe invested in
getting where it is. So, software has a very strong monopolistic
tendency.
There is no monopoly, anywhere
Even if at the moment there are a few companies competing, if one
fails it isn't possible for a new one to take its place. The number of
competing companies has a tendency to decrease.
But never any monopoly
It will probably be worse with AI. This is an existential threat.
Bullshit and nothing even remotely like a monopoly
However, our politicians don't talk about it. They are busy talking
about migrants in boats, early release from prison, or getting us
involved in some foreign war. The UK political system is worse than
most countries for distracting the population with trivia.
But no MONOPOLYS
On 8/11/26 10:02, Rod Speed wrote:
But no MONOPOLYS
Apologies, I forgot who your were,
On 8/11/26 10:02, Rod Speed wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 17:41:55 +1000, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/11/26 00:13, Rod Speed wrote:Bullshit with EVERYONE USING IT
On Tue, 11 Aug 2026 02:18:24 +1000, Pancho
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/10/26 12:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Aug 2026 at 12:07:41 BST, "Pancho"
<Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:
On 8/9/26 11:26, Roger Hayter wrote:They have, over the years, invested very heavily in enriching
We should employ a know-all clever cunt like you to go through >>>>>>>>> all theHe's probably not wrong though (speaking as a retired doctor). >>>>>>>>
NHS results, you'd save us a fortune on incorrect prescribing. >>>>>>>>
Speaking as a retired IT professional, and currently still a
practising
know-all, it sounds very like the NHS should be investing in
computer
systems to give good prescribing advice.
software firms'
shareholders, without any discernible results.
Software development is expensive. It is only economic at scale.
Someone will get it right eventually. Then everyone will use it.
Can't think of any software where that last has ever happened
I was being hyperbolic, but you see it with companies like Google,
Amazon.
Stripe is a good example. You probably haven't heard of it,Wrong
but it sells software that handles customer payments. When I were aEveryone doesn't use it
lad everyone wrote their own payment process systems. However, because >>> processing customer payments is largely the same for all systems it
makes sense for one company to do it right and then sell a system to
everyone else. It is not practical for everyone to reinvent the wheel. >>> Because Stripe can spread its development cost across thousands of
systems it can afford to spend huge amounts on development, huge
amounts on getting it right. It then becomes very difficult for any
new startup software organisation to develop a new product to compete.
If someone employs you as a programmer they wonder why you can'tThere is no monopoly, anywhere
develop are the features Stripe offers, in a few months, they don't
appreciate the massive amount of programmer time Stripe invested in
getting where it is. So, software has a very strong monopolistic
tendency.
Even if at the moment there are a few companies competing, if oneBut never any monopoly
fails it isn't possible for a new one to take its place. The number of >>> competing companies has a tendency to decrease.
It will probably be worse with AI. This is an existential threat.Bullshit and nothing even remotely like a monopoly
However, our politicians don't talk about it. They are busy talkingBut no MONOPOLYS
about migrants in boats, early release from prison, or getting us
involved in some foreign war. The UK political system is worse than
most countries for distracting the population with trivia.
Apologies, I forgot who your were,
On 10 Aug 2026 at 12:29:32 BST, "The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 10/08/2026 12:06, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 9 Aug 2026 at 12:07:41 BST, "Pancho" <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> wrote:Actually that's not *totally* fair..
On 8/9/26 11:26, Roger Hayter wrote:
We should employ a know-all clever cunt like you to go through all the >>>>>> NHS results, you'd save us a fortune on incorrect prescribing.
He's probably not wrong though (speaking as a retired doctor).
Speaking as a retired IT professional, and currently still a practising >>>> know-all, it sounds very like the NHS should be investing in computer >>>> systems to give good prescribing advice.
They have, over the years, invested very heavily in enriching software firms'
shareholders, without any discernible results.
And they had to navigate a LOT of security concerns about access to
peoples private medical data
*Most* of my medical records are online. Even "I think my husband has
brain damage" from my ex....Lovely girl. Not an ounce of spite in her...
MOST patient letters are online. Most of the data is shared between the
local hospital and the GP, but Addenbrookes - which I have attended for
some stuff - and Papworth, are not on the same system.
The GPs definitely use some software to check drug inter-reactions.
A lot of notifications arrive by email and/or text message
So really its about halfway there
I think most GP systems were capitalist funded in a competitive market. Looked through the lens of secondary care I would estimate we are about 5 percent "there".
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 49:04:04 |
| Calls: | 1,100 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 275,768 |