Long wait for private company to review GP referral

[Wordesley]

Hi, has anyone experienced this? After a 10 day wait for a telephone GP appt I was asked to go in and see her the same day. Outcome of examination was suspected gallstones and a referral for an ultrasound. Two weeks later I received a letter from private company called HealthHarmonie, telling me that my GP's referral will be reviewed and I will hear from them if it is to go ahead, and it could take up to 8 weeks. Since when did a call centre operator for a private company decide if someone can have investigation/treatment on the NHS? What happens if this person decides I don't warrant investigation?

[kensimmons]

Why do you think it's the call center making the decision and not just passing on a message?

[Wordesley in reply to kensimmons]

The letter states "your referral is being reviewed and you will be contacted by (ultrasound dept) if you need to be seen, or your surgery if the clinic sends any other advice. Please wait till 26th April 22 and if you have not been contacted by this date ring ( )". I'm asking the question to see if anyone has previous experience of this system

[DavyGravy]

Hi Wordesley

It might be a third party company. My daughter works for a company that is often employed to reduce waiting times or backlogs. I do not know whether the NHS contact patients or if it is someone from her company. Maybe this is what has happened for you.

But only medically trained personnel can decide who can have a scan so I think it safe to assume it will not be a call centre operator. I'm sure you will get your scan, and this was probably just a generic letter sent to everyone.

Dave

[Wordesley in reply to DavyGravy]

Thanks for your reply Dave and I really do appreciate the reasoning. Maybe it was the wording of the letter that raised questions for me, and whilst I can completely understand and support using a company to logistically plan when and where treatments are available so patients can be seen as quickly as possible, I cannot understand the inferred meaning that someone else may override the decision of my GP without the benefit of a face to face examination.

[DavyGravy in reply to Wordesley]

I agree the wording is vague. It should probably say, This letter is to confirm that we have you on our appointment list and as soon as we have been given permission we will send you a time/ date confirmation.

But obviously it should be worded better than above and better than the letter you received.

[kensimmons]

Dave said exactly what I tried to say, only much better. If it were something really bad they would have called you so consider this at least somewhat good news and relax for a month!

[Aotea2012]

I agree with Dave. The NHS has enormous waiting list backlogs at the moment so is doing everything it can to reduce them. This includes treating patients but is also looking at referrals onto the waiting list to check that everything has been explored other than an operation. This review is only performed by a clinically trained person. The NHS often contracts with companies who specifically perform this task rather than divert hospital staff time.

[PeterP54]

I know how painful gall stone colic can be as many years ago it took months to get mine sorted. Possibly because my age and physique at the time did not fit the usual gall stone criteria ( fair fat and forty). I suggest you consider writing to your MP.

[Wordesley in reply to PeterP54]

Hi Peter, I'm over 40, fair (female) and would rather not comment on the third criteria, 🤣🤣. I know that waiting lists are extraordinary at the moment, but this is just for a scan not treatment and I just didn't expect to get the kind of letter that I did, which is why I was asking for anyone's experience of this kind of referral. If it streamlines investigation and treatment I'm all for it, but I will wait to be impressed. In comparison, my husand's had two GP appointments, referred for MRI's on both occasions, and has had appointments come through within 10 days. Oh well.

[Richard-Allen]

I think this could be a rather contentious issue and these are my personal thoughts and views. Others may well disagree.

I think sometimes the way things are going, this could be just part of a bigger picture. Some people (like myself) may see this as being part of the big NHS sell-off.

Some time ago, I became concerned about how much of our personal medical data was being shared with other private companies. Many of these companies were of American origin.

Many GP surgeries now have an option whereby a person can refuse to share their data with any companies outside of the NHS. I have signed up for this and refuse my data to be shared.

Some years ago, The Royal Free Hospital in London got into trouble for sharing the date of some 1.6 million patients with Google’s Deep Mind program: theguardian.com/technology/...

Around this time, about 3 GP surgeries in London were being run and owned by a private American company called “Centene”. Now that number has grown to 49 doctors surgeries in London and over 70 in the country: weownit.org.uk/blog/here-ar...

Many people who have visited the QE Hospital in Birmingham will be aware of the new hospital that has been built on the hospital ground. This is the new private Harborne Hospital. This is a joint venture between the NHS Trust and an American (for profit) company called HCA Healthcare. This hospital will treat both private and some NHS patients.

Although "HealthHarmonie" is indeed a private Limited company. I would not like my data to be shared outside of the NHS Trust. This also brings in the question of data ownership. Technically if a private company orders up a scan or x-ray, then that company owns the copyright of the image produced. They in turn can share that image with say an NHS trust, but that private company would still own the image. The NHS Trust would not be able to share this image with a third party such as another NHS trust.

It saddens me to see our beloved NHS eroded like this as more and more outside private companies seem to be taking it apart bit by bit.

Richard