On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 22:46:42 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <uf72t0$ctb5$1@dont-email.me> at Fri, 29 Sep 2023 17:52:33,
>Mike McMillan <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> writes
>[]
>>Come on Nick, play the game with the rest of us; you are supposed to wait
>>on the telephone to be told ‘you are 25th in line’ and then watch the
>>minutes clock by and by and by….. You will hear the same sets of
>>announcements every 30 seconds or so and in between will be subjected to
>>some awful muzak. But don’t worry, your call is important to them….
>>
>Being told your position in the queue is so late last century - I seem
>to remember it _was_ quite common around the turn of the century, so
>it's not rocket science; however, it seems to be a lot rarer now.
>
>On the whole I don't mind awful muzak _that_ much (though if it's
>distorted, that grates, as I'm a ex-electronic-engineer); what grates
>far more is spoken exhortations to use the website. Which, obviously, I
>am not going to do if I'm waiting on the 'phone. OK, tell me once - but
>don't keep repeating it.
>
>Being "on hold" in that way is perhaps the one thing that'd tempt me to
>get other than a PAYG mobile contract: I have anytime 'phone calls on my
>landline, but (like most such) they're only free (or rather uncharged)
>for the first hour (then they go to tens of pence a minute). If calling
>a friend I can hang up after 5x minutes and redial, but obviously not
>when on hold; I don't _think_ I've had a hold that took that long, but
>I've certainly had one where I was anxiously watching the clock (I think
>I finally got through to a human after 5x minutes).
>
>But it'll all probably go different anyway when POTS ends and we have to
>go VoIP - anyone here already on that and can tell us what sort of
>calling plans are on offer?

Our GP has differnt time slots for differnt calls. An hour to ask for
results for instance. And Ican't recall the others but if you ring
early and there is a long queue thehour can pass before you nuggering
get through. Oh I thinkin the morning there is a slot for booking to
see or speak to a GP. (see is optimistic). So there too the hour can
get to the end and when they see you no times are left. Or they say
ring again tomorrow, it is not that hour any more.

On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 07:55:52 -0000 (UTC), Chris
<chris.mcmillan@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>We’ve had the same GP since late 1984! She must have come as a newly
>registered GP. Fortunately, although I have far goo many long term chronic
>irritants, they’re well controlled so I don’t bother the surgery except for
>annual checks often

What is this 'annual check' of which you speak?

At our local medical centre, since my named doctor retired, we do
not actually, so far as they will tell me, have an assigned
member of the practice. This makes it tricky on any form
requiring the name of one's doctor.

Online it is possible to book appointments for things like blood
tests, but not for a doctor.

As I am due to see the vampires next week, I will try my luck at
booking a non-urgent appointment whilst I am on the premises.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.

In message <jupfhi9paeaspn023gg3o68fevnhq4k6mq@4ax.com> at Sat, 30 Sep
2023 10:18:31, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 07:55:52 -0000 (UTC), Chris
><chris.mcmillan@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>We’ve had the same GP since late 1984! She must have come as a newly
>>registered GP. Fortunately, although I have far goo many long term chronic
>>irritants, they’re well controlled so I don’t bother the surgery except for
>>annual checks often
>
>What is this 'annual check' of which you speak?

(Slartibartfast echo noted!)

I don't think it's a default thing, but once you get one of several
conditions, the monitoring of _that_ can involve an annual (or oftener)
check.

(Maybe beyond a certain age there _is_ one anyway, I just haven't
reached whatever age that is yet.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Does Barbie come with Ken?"
"Barbie comes with G.I. Joe. She fakes it with Ken." - anonymous

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> In message <jupfhi9paeaspn023gg3o68fevnhq4k6mq@4ax.com> at Sat, 30 Sep
> 2023 10:18:31, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 07:55:52 -0000 (UTC), Chris
>> <chris.mcmillan@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We’ve had the same GP since late 1984! She must have come as a newly
>>> registered GP. Fortunately, although I have far goo many long term chronic
>>> irritants, they’re well controlled so I don’t bother the surgery except for
>>> annual checks often
>>
>> What is this 'annual check' of which you speak?
>
> (Slartibartfast echo noted!)
>
> I don't think it's a default thing, but once you get one of several
> conditions, the monitoring of _that_ can involve an annual (or oftener)
> check.
>
> (Maybe beyond a certain age there _is_ one anyway, I just haven't
> reached whatever age that is yet.)

For starters, I have six monthly PSA checks for prostate cancer and the
treatment thereof, yearly checks for diabetic retinopathy, diabetic blood,
pulse, height, weight, circulation and urine check, then there are various
health monitoring programmes like those for Biobank UK and I have now
started on an NHS-sponsored health monitoring programme. I am taking part
in a monthly ‘Aspire’ heart monitoring survey following some strange heart
behaviour whilst wearing a chest worn heart monitor for two weeks and I
have a echocardiogram session in about 6 weeks which I suspect will then
involve further checks….

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 17:52:33 -0000 (UTC), Mike McMillan
<toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> scrawled in the dust...

>Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 10:13:07 +0100, Jenny M Benson
>> <NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/09/2023 09:46, Vicky wrote:
>>>> I got a blood test date 2 weeks ahead, wait a week to ring and check
>>>> results, get reception and have to book a GP phone call to discuss,
>>>> which can be another week.
>>>
>>> I was texted with a request to make a face-to-face appt. with a GP to
>>> discuss my blood test results. I was glad because I am NOT GOOD on the
>>> telephone. Turned out to be with a locum GP who was everything one
>>> could wish for in a doctor. Unfortunately he says it might not be him I
>>> see when I go back again in 2 weeks after next blood test.
>>
>> Me too. (Not good on phone) Since the surgery is only fifteen minutes
>> walk away, I never phone them but walk there instead. I'm not sure how
>> practical that might be in future since it's fairly certain that if I
>> became not very good on my legs, my phone skills wouldn't suddenly be
>> enhanced in compensation
>>
>> Nick
>>
>
>Come on Nick, play the game with the rest of us; you are supposed to wait
>on the telephone to be told ‘you are 25th in line’ and then watch the
>minutes clock by and by and by….. You will hear the same sets of
>announcements every 30 seconds or so and in between will be subjected to
>some awful muzak. But don’t worry, your call is important to them….

I've got better at handling the GP intro rubbish over the years, it no
longer takes 50 seconds to reach the main menu - skip the which language
query by clicking 1 as soon as they start talking, skip to the end by
pressing 1 again. Fortunately, they manage the long queue bit, by sending a
busy message once it is 3 calls long, so you don't have to spend so much
money failing to reach someone. Sadly, nobody who works there has ever been
in that queue, so they don't know the hold music drops out frequently,
making you pick up the phone before there is someone to speak to.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 17:52:33 -0000 (UTC), Mike McMillan
> <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> scrawled in the dust...
>
>> Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 10:13:07 +0100, Jenny M Benson
>>> <NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29/09/2023 09:46, Vicky wrote:
>>>>> I got a blood test date 2 weeks ahead, wait a week to ring and check
>>>>> results, get reception and have to book a GP phone call to discuss,
>>>>> which can be another week.
>>>>
>>>> I was texted with a request to make a face-to-face appt. with a GP to
>>>> discuss my blood test results. I was glad because I am NOT GOOD on the
>>>> telephone. Turned out to be with a locum GP who was everything one
>>>> could wish for in a doctor. Unfortunately he says it might not be him I
>>>> see when I go back again in 2 weeks after next blood test.
>>>
>>> Me too. (Not good on phone) Since the surgery is only fifteen minutes
>>> walk away, I never phone them but walk there instead. I'm not sure how
>>> practical that might be in future since it's fairly certain that if I
>>> became not very good on my legs, my phone skills wouldn't suddenly be
>>> enhanced in compensation
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>
>> Come on Nick, play the game with the rest of us; you are supposed to wait
>> on the telephone to be told ‘you are 25th in line’ and then watch the
>> minutes clock by and by and by….. You will hear the same sets of
>> announcements every 30 seconds or so and in between will be subjected to
>> some awful muzak. But don’t worry, your call is important to them….
>
> I've got better at handling the GP intro rubbish over the years, it no
> longer takes 50 seconds to reach the main menu - skip the which language
> query by clicking 1 as soon as they start talking, skip to the end by
> pressing 1 again. Fortunately, they manage the long queue bit, by sending a
> busy message once it is 3 calls long, so you don't have to spend so much
> money failing to reach someone. Sadly, nobody who works there has ever been
> in that queue, so they don't know the hold music drops out frequently,
> making you pick up the phone before there is someone to speak to.

Rather than ‘entertaining us with the Muzak, perhaps they should be playing
something called You-sick?

--
Toodle Pip, Mike McMillan

BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/09/2023 23:20, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>
>> For some extra excitement, remind yourself that your call is costing 20
>> pence for each wasted minute[1].
>>
>> [1] Not me, you understand, since I use my phobile moan, but Wofe
>> insists on using the landline.
>>
> How quaint, still having a landline. ;)
>
> I don't waste any time while I am in the queue on my mobile - I am also
> on the laptop doing what I would have been doing anyway.
>
>

For some reason first thing in the morning when the queue is worst, we have
found McT’s fobile hasn’t worked

Mrs McT

Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> wrote:
> On 29-Sep-23 18:52, Mike McMillan wrote:
>> Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 10:13:07 +0100, Jenny M Benson
>>> <NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29/09/2023 09:46, Vicky wrote:
>>>>> I got a blood test date 2 weeks ahead, wait a week to ring and check
>>>>> results, get reception and have to book a GP phone call to discuss,
>>>>> which can be another week.
>>>>
>>>> I was texted with a request to make a face-to-face appt. with a GP to
>>>> discuss my blood test results. I was glad because I am NOT GOOD on the
>>>> telephone. Turned out to be with a locum GP who was everything one
>>>> could wish for in a doctor. Unfortunately he says it might not be him I
>>>> see when I go back again in 2 weeks after next blood test.
>>>
>>> Me too. (Not good on phone) Since the surgery is only fifteen minutes
>>> walk away, I never phone them but walk there instead. I'm not sure how
>>> practical that might be in future since it's fairly certain that if I
>>> became not very good on my legs, my phone skills wouldn't suddenly be
>>> enhanced in compensation
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>
>> Come on Nick, play the game with the rest of us; you are supposed to wait
>> on the telephone to be told ‘you are 25th in line’ and then watch the
>> minutes clock by and by and by….. You will hear the same sets of
>> announcements every 30 seconds or so and in between will be subjected to
>> some awful muzak. But don’t worry, your call is important to them….
>>
> For some extra excitement, remind yourself that your call is costing 20
> pence for each wasted minute[1].
>
> [1] Not me, you understand, since I use my phobile moan, but Wofe
> insists on using the landline.
>

We’ve been moved to VOIR, being I do better with landlines when it ends up
I’m speaking to someone on a fobile and particularly a call centre, only to
find that the quality of a cordless landline phone can be *rubbish*, to
other cordless phones which was why even before we had half decent mobiles,
we’d reverted to corded phones.

Mrs McT

In message <6r0ghipe4m563a4uivs0gl9lrs9eh1p8q0@4ax.com> at Sat, 30 Sep
2023 12:28:24, Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> writes
>At our local medical centre, since my named doctor retired, we do
>not actually, so far as they will tell me, have an assigned
>member of the practice. This makes it tricky on any form
>requiring the name of one's doctor.

I told them it was for a form, and they told me who my nominal GP was/is
(not sure I've ever met him); they did say you'll probably not see him
if you see a doctor, but they told me who the nominal one was. (I've
forgotten already, though I have a note. When I _did_ last speak to one
- it was Dr. Immelman, who I always think should be off skiing - it
wasn't him.)

I wanted the name as I was communicating with the DVLA to say I'm no
longer on insulin for my diabetes, and I knew the form said diabetics
treated with insulin don't even have to tell the DVLA, but I had told
them when I initially was: I was asking could I go back to a normal
driving licence, rather than having to renew every three years, to save
both me and them time. In effect they agreed with me, and sent me a
replacement licence - though not with any form of letter _saying_ they'd
agreed, just a standard letter about your new licence. Which runs out a
year after the three-year one would have anyway, so I rang them up, but
apparently that's just when the photo runs out, so I'd have had to
anyway.

For anyone interested - it was the diabetic nurse who got me off
insulin, by gradually giving me other things and reducing the insulin. I
_presume_ she consulted a doctor from time to time, but the doctors
never spoke to me (Dr. Immelman was calling to discuss my prostate
biopsy coming up clear). I'm now on Metformin maximum (500 mg × 4, i. e.
2 grams of it), and dapagliflozin. (And atorvastatin, though I think
that's for something else, and tamsulosin, which I think is for flow
improvement.)
>
>Online it is possible to book appointments for things like blood
>tests, but not for a doctor.
>
>As I am due to see the vampires next week, I will try my luck at
>booking a non-urgent appointment whilst I am on the premises.
>
>Chris

Hmm. I remember being peeved that the vampires wanted none of me - which
was irritating, as I liked doing it (and, not that that was important, I
was only about three donations off the free meal - when I intended to
get up and criticise their timidity). Maybe I should contact them again
now I'm off insulin - though I fear they'll still say no because of the
other four contaminants.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

%
To keep leaf vegetables clean and crisp, cook lightly, then plunge into iced
water (the vegetables, that is). - manual for a Russell Hobbs electric steame

On 30-Sep-23 12:20, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> In message <jupfhi9paeaspn023gg3o68fevnhq4k6mq@4ax.com> at Sat, 30 Sep
> 2023 10:18:31, Vicky <vicky.ayech@gmail.com> writes
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 07:55:52 -0000 (UTC), Chris
>> <chris.mcmillan@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We’ve had the same GP since late 1984!  She must have come as a newly
>>> registered GP.  Fortunately, although I have far goo many long term
>>> chronic
>>> irritants, they’re well controlled so I don’t bother the surgery
>>> except for
>>> annual checks often
>>
>> What is this 'annual check' of which you speak?
>
> (Slartibartfast echo noted!)
>
> I don't think it's a default thing, but once you get one of several
> conditions, the monitoring of _that_ can involve an annual (or oftener)
> check.
>
> (Maybe beyond a certain age there _is_ one anyway, I just haven't
> reached whatever age that is yet.)

It may depend on your Local Health Authority, but here your long-term
prescriptions 'are required' to be reviewed every 12 months.
That can be done as part of an annual health check, but with the current
pressure on our surgery mine is now a blood test & a 2 minute phone call
with a GP I have never met nor heard of.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 30-Sep-23 12:28, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> At our local medical centre, since my named doctor retired, we do
> not actually, so far as they will tell me, have an assigned
> member of the practice. This makes it tricky on any form
> requiring the name of one's doctor.

I just give the name of the medical practice.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 30-Sep-23 8:29, BrritSki wrote:
> On 29/09/2023 23:20, Sam Plusnet wrote:
>>>
>> For some extra excitement, remind yourself that your call is costing
>> 20 pence for each wasted minute[1].
>>
>> [1] Not me, you understand, since I use my phobile moan, but Wofe
>> insists on using the landline.
>>
> How quaint, still having a landline. ;)

Wofe has her ways, and is set in them.
>
> I don't waste any time while I am in the queue on my mobile - I am also
> on the laptop doing what I would have been doing anyway.
>

Spider Solitaire on a desktop machine, but much the same for me.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 30-Sep-23 17:06, Penny wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 17:52:33 -0000 (UTC), Mike McMillan
> <toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> scrawled in the dust...
>
>> Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 10:13:07 +0100, Jenny M Benson
>>> <NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29/09/2023 09:46, Vicky wrote:
>>>>> I got a blood test date 2 weeks ahead, wait a week to ring and check
>>>>> results, get reception and have to book a GP phone call to discuss,
>>>>> which can be another week.
>>>>
>>>> I was texted with a request to make a face-to-face appt. with a GP to
>>>> discuss my blood test results. I was glad because I am NOT GOOD on the
>>>> telephone. Turned out to be with a locum GP who was everything one
>>>> could wish for in a doctor. Unfortunately he says it might not be him I
>>>> see when I go back again in 2 weeks after next blood test.
>>>
>>> Me too. (Not good on phone) Since the surgery is only fifteen minutes
>>> walk away, I never phone them but walk there instead. I'm not sure how
>>> practical that might be in future since it's fairly certain that if I
>>> became not very good on my legs, my phone skills wouldn't suddenly be
>>> enhanced in compensation
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>
>> Come on Nick, play the game with the rest of us; you are supposed to wait
>> on the telephone to be told ‘you are 25th in line’ and then watch the
>> minutes clock by and by and by….. You will hear the same sets of
>> announcements every 30 seconds or so and in between will be subjected to
>> some awful muzak. But don’t worry, your call is important to them….
>
> I've got better at handling the GP intro rubbish over the years, it no
> longer takes 50 seconds to reach the main menu - skip the which language
> query by clicking 1 as soon as they start talking, skip to the end by
> pressing 1 again. Fortunately, they manage the long queue bit, by sending a
> busy message once it is 3 calls long, so you don't have to spend so much
> money failing to reach someone. Sadly, nobody who works there has ever been
> in that queue, so they don't know the hold music drops out frequently,
> making you pick up the phone before there is someone to speak to.

At our surgery, the music drops out at 25 second intervals - so they can
repeat the same (I think it's) 3 recorded 'suggestions' at very short
intervals.

One is - 'go talk to the pharmacist & save us some work', another says -
'if your other half is beating you up, ring this number and save us some
work'. The last one is "You are now in a queue, and your call will be
answered...".

--
Sam Plusnet

In message <2FZRM.73293$uu_.1910@fx09.ams1> at Sat, 30 Sep 2023
19:19:42, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
[]
>It may depend on your Local Health Authority, but here your long-term
>prescriptions 'are required' to be reviewed every 12 months.

I suspect it's a national requirement. Whether the review has to involve
you, I've no idea.

My repeat prescription form has - printed - at the bottom of the last
page: Review Date Overdue, and a date. I assume that's common.

>That can be done as part of an annual health check, but with the
>current pressure on our surgery mine is now a blood test & a 2 minute
>phone call with a GP I have never met nor heard of.
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

All I ask is to _prove_ that money can't make me happy.

On 30.9.23 19:09, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> For anyone interested - it was the diabetic nurse who got me off
> insulin, by gradually giving me other things and reducing the insulin. I
> _presume_ she consulted a doctor from time to time, but the doctors
> never spoke to me (Dr. Immelman was calling to discuss my prostate
> biopsy coming up clear). I'm now on Metformin maximum (500 mg × 4, i. e.
> 2 grams of it), and dapagliflozin.

Over the years I reached that maximum dosage combination and whilst that
worked for a while the pancreas slowly failing means that I went the
other way some time ago. Now that I have been on insulin for some time
I prefer it - my latest blood tests prove it is better controlled and it
means that I can have something sweet from time to time, and know that
within a day or less additional insulin will bring things right and no
long term damage is being done from high sugars - that level of control
is not possible, especially when on the maximum drug dose which does not
allow finer control.

I did not like the idea of insulin but 3 or 4 years since I started my
long term sugar levels are definitely better.

--
Kosmo Richard W
www.travelswmw.whitnet.uk
https://tinyurl.com/KRWpics

BrritSki <rtilburyTAKEOUT@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 28/09/2023 19:48, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>>
>> Probably not.  She's just taken a job as a locum at the local GP
>> surgery, allowing Ambridge residents to get non-emergency appointments
>> within a couple of day, rather than the several weeks enjoyed in other
>> parts of the country.
>>
> We can get same day appts with a GP here. Had one only last week for
> eardrum perforated in Majorca.
>
>

So can we. We have a brilliant service.

--
Sally in Shropshire, UK

In message <RhWdnXq7jZWetIT4nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> at Sun, 1
Oct 2023 09:08:36, krw <krw@whitnet.uk> writes
>On 30.9.23 19:09, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
>> For anyone interested - it was the diabetic nurse who got me off
>>insulin, by gradually giving me other things and reducing the insulin.
[]
>>biopsy coming up clear). I'm now on Metformin maximum (500 mg × 4, i.
>>e. 2 grams of it), and dapagliflozin.
>
>Over the years I reached that maximum dosage combination and whilst
>that worked for a while the pancreas slowly failing means that I went
>the other way some time ago. Now that I have been on insulin for some
>time I prefer it - my latest blood tests prove it is better controlled
>and it means that I can have something sweet from time to time, and
>know that within a day or less additional insulin will bring things
>right and no long term damage is being done from high sugars - that
>level of control is not possible, especially when on the maximum drug
>dose which does not allow finer control.
>
>I did not like the idea of insulin but 3 or 4 years since I started my
>long term sugar levels are definitely better.
>
I did not really mind the insulin - it was mainly the consequences (such
as DVLA matters - actually I can't think of any others, maybe
insurance?) that bugged me. Granted, it _is_ nice to not mess about with
the disposable needles. (For anyone wondering - they really _don't_
hurt, most times; not sure why - I think because of how fine they are.)
And as for sugar, I found it was _more_ stable as I moved onto the
pills; I used to get readings 5 to 10-ish (even the occasional 12, when
I had to do the ketone tests - though those were always clear), and the
main thing was I could rarely work out why they were high (correlation
with what I'd eaten etc.). Nurse told me I needn't do the readings daily
now, but I still do them once a week for my own curiosity - and they're
mostly 5.x or 6.x (I had a 7.0 last week; today's is 6.3. (mmol/l, I
think - I know different units are used in different places.)
Maybe my pancreas is getting better!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

%
.... the pleasure of the mind is an amazing thing. My life has been driven by
the satisfaction of curiosity. - Jeremy Paxman (being interviewed by Anne
Widdecombe), Radio Times, 2-8 July 2011

J. P. Gilliver wrote:

>In message <6r0ghipe4m563a4uivs0gl9lrs9eh1p8q0@4ax.com> at Sat, 30 Sep
>2023 12:28:24, Chris J Dixon <chris@cdixon.me.uk> writes

>>Online it is possible to book appointments for things like blood
>>tests, but not for a doctor.
>>
>>As I am due to see the vampires next week, I will try my luck at
>>booking a non-urgent appointment whilst I am on the premises.

>Hmm. I remember being peeved that the vampires wanted none of me - which
>was irritating, as I liked doing it (and, not that that was important, I
>was only about three donations off the free meal - when I intended to
>get up and criticise their timidity).

They don't want that much!

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.

On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 17:06:46 +0100, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 17:52:33 -0000 (UTC), Mike McMillan
><toodle.pip1@virginmedia.com> scrawled in the dust...
>
>>Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 10:13:07 +0100, Jenny M Benson
>>> <NemoNews@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29/09/2023 09:46, Vicky wrote:
>>>>> I got a blood test date 2 weeks ahead, wait a week to ring and check
>>>>> results, get reception and have to book a GP phone call to discuss,
>>>>> which can be another week.
>>>>
>>>> I was texted with a request to make a face-to-face appt. with a GP to
>>>> discuss my blood test results. I was glad because I am NOT GOOD on the
>>>> telephone. Turned out to be with a locum GP who was everything one
>>>> could wish for in a doctor. Unfortunately he says it might not be him I
>>>> see when I go back again in 2 weeks after next blood test.
>>>
>>> Me too. (Not good on phone) Since the surgery is only fifteen minutes
>>> walk away, I never phone them but walk there instead. I'm not sure how
>>> practical that might be in future since it's fairly certain that if I
>>> became not very good on my legs, my phone skills wouldn't suddenly be
>>> enhanced in compensation
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>
>>Come on Nick, play the game with the rest of us; you are supposed to wait
>>on the telephone to be told ‘you are 25th in line’ and then watch the
>>minutes clock by and by and by….. You will hear the same sets of
>>announcements every 30 seconds or so and in between will be subjected to
>>some awful muzak. But don’t worry, your call is important to them….
>
>I've got better at handling the GP intro rubbish over the years, it no
>longer takes 50 seconds to reach the main menu - skip the which language
>query by clicking 1 as soon as they start talking, skip to the end by
>pressing 1 again. Fortunately, they manage the long queue bit, by sending a
>busy message once it is 3 calls long, so you don't have to spend so much
>money failing to reach someone. Sadly, nobody who works there has ever been
>in that queue, so they don't know the hold music drops out frequently,
>making you pick up the phone before there is someone to speak to.

I called Liliana last night. I usually do but from Canada the times
are different.

She was watching a performance of Der Rosenkavalier when I called and
left the phone behind when she went to get her hearing devices. Well
it made a difference from the usual hold music!

Nick

On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 21:32:18 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
scrawled in the dust...

>In message <2FZRM.73293$uu_.1910@fx09.ams1> at Sat, 30 Sep 2023
>19:19:42, Sam Plusnet <not@home.com> writes
>[]
>>It may depend on your Local Health Authority, but here your long-term
>>prescriptions 'are required' to be reviewed every 12 months.
>
>I suspect it's a national requirement. Whether the review has to involve
>you, I've no idea.
>
>My repeat prescription form has - printed - at the bottom of the last
>page: Review Date Overdue, and a date. I assume that's common.

I think, in theory at least, the regular repeat drugs should not be
prescribed until the annual review has been done. This got a bit out of
hand in recent years. My review was 6 months late in 2021 and then I had
another 6 months later, to put me back on the normal 'month of birth'
schedule. When I had them done on the phone, I was asked if I had a blood
pressure monitor at home, I don't.
--
Penny
Annoyed by The Archers since 1959

Penny wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 21:32:18 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>scrawled in the dust...

>>My repeat prescription form has - printed - at the bottom of the last
>>page: Review Date Overdue, and a date. I assume that's common.
>
>I think, in theory at least, the regular repeat drugs should not be
>prescribed until the annual review has been done. This got a bit out of
>hand in recent years. My review was 6 months late in 2021 and then I had
>another 6 months later, to put me back on the normal 'month of birth'
>schedule. When I had them done on the phone, I was asked if I had a blood
>pressure monitor at home, I don't.

Having no actual reference to explain how these things need to be
managed, I had previously taken it upon myself to book a blood
test and GP phone appointment whenever the paperwork showed a
review was needed.

When I neglected this, during Covid, I noticed that the date had
been changed without my involvement. Since then although I may
have been called in for the odd blood test, the "review" doesn't
seem to have required discussion with me.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham
'48/33 M B+ G++ A L(-) I S-- CH0(--)(p) Ar- T+ H0 ?Q
chris@cdixon.me.uk @ChrisJDixon1
Plant amazing Acers.

In message <lr0lhihe3jj48g2n5nih5v3qgt4144ghe5@4ax.com> at Mon, 2 Oct
2023 09:56:11, Penny <spam@labyrinth.freeuk.com> writes
[]
>schedule. When I had them done on the phone, I was asked if I had a blood
>pressure monitor at home, I don't.

I have one I bought at Lidl or Aldi, and it seems to work well; it is
the wrist type, which the nurses etc. seem not to prefer, so I looked
into the upper-arm type, which had come down in price - Sainsburys had
one for twenty-something pounds (in the pharmacy). I haven't bought one
(not that I think it's expensive, I just would then have one - the wrist
one - that was redundant).
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Less rules means fewer grammar? - Marjorie in UMRA, 2014-1-28 13:14

On 02-Oct-23 11:29, Chris J Dixon wrote:
> Penny wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 21:32:18 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
>> scrawled in the dust...
>
>>> My repeat prescription form has - printed - at the bottom of the last
>>> page: Review Date Overdue, and a date. I assume that's common.
>>
>> I think, in theory at least, the regular repeat drugs should not be
>> prescribed until the annual review has been done. This got a bit out of
>> hand in recent years. My review was 6 months late in 2021 and then I had
>> another 6 months later, to put me back on the normal 'month of birth'
>> schedule. When I had them done on the phone, I was asked if I had a blood
>> pressure monitor at home, I don't.
>
> Having no actual reference to explain how these things need to be
> managed, I had previously taken it upon myself to book a blood
> test and GP phone appointment whenever the paperwork showed a
> review was needed.

I found this strange.

It seemed that _I_ was expected to decide if, and what, blood tests
should be done, before I could have a prescription review.

Since I am not qualified to practice medicine, nor make clinical
judgements, I did wonder what sort of trouble I was letting myself in for.

--
Sam Plusnet

On 02/10/2023 11:36, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

<snip>

> I have one I bought at Lidl or Aldi, and it seems to work well; it is
> the wrist type, which the nurses etc. seem not to prefer, so I looked
> into the upper-arm type, which had come down in price - Sainsburys had
> one for twenty-something pounds (in the pharmacy). I haven't bought one
> (not that I think it's expensive, I just would then have one - the wrist
> one - that was redundant).

Lidl have this one, starting from tomorrow (8/10)...

https://www.lidl.co.uk/p/medisana-blood-pressure-monitor/p10007955?pageId=10029723&tabCode=Current_Sales_Week

....this has been a PSA.

--
Cheers
Clive