Philip Drijber

Although I agree with the spirit of the guideline, it is unrealistic in its expectations for rural and remote practice. Unless the goal is to prevent anyone from working in a rural setting, it must be adapted to the circumstances that exist out of major urban centres where there is sufficient staff and resources to make the guideline possible. For example, what will a solo practitioner do with number 3 if they experience a sudden illness and are incapable of fulfilling the requirements? Will they be disciplined as they will not have met the expectation. What is they wish to retire and no one wishes to take on the responsibility for the likely extended period required to recruit a new physician (and this policy may make it even harder to recruit). Further number 2 sets an onerous task on a solo practitioner to work everyday to check and review records. That is a recipe for burnout. Lastly, where is patient responsibility in the guidelines. Why are they not expected to follow up with the physician as it is their health concern for which they came to the physician. Why is the physician the only one held to account. The guidelines are paternalistic and not empowering of the patient in the patient/physician relationship.

Comments for this post are now closed. If you would like to share your feedback on this topic, please email

« Previous EntryNext Entry »