GP receptionist

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119788429#Comment_119788429

I think you're underestimating the control gatekeeper #1 had and giving them way too much credit.

Seeing as gatekeeper #2, was able to offer the daughter an appointment 4 days earlier, and at a time that did suit her needs.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119788455#Comment_119788455

#1 had no information was dealing with a 3rd party

#2 had more information was dealing with the person directly and had it was later, so appointments might have opened up.

Partly the reason for persisting with the GP wanted to skip the queue and cost of any alternative options. Seems to be common theme.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119788445#Comment_119788445

The admin staff with no "medical" training will be processing your files and records, appointments, scanning your records etc.

All the jumping through hoops is completely redundant and self defeating. In fact your messing around is more likely to bring your actions under discussion.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119788479#Comment_119788479

Did you even read the full OP post?

The OP gave gatekeeper #1 more than enough information and explanations. Adults make appointments for other adult relatives all the time - partners / parents etc, why is this woman making an appointment for her daughter such a big deal?

As it happens, Gatekeeper #1 actually lied when she told the OP the latest appointment available was at 4pm - when later on it turned out Gatekeeper #2 was able to make an appointment for the daughter at a later time.

So you know what, you keep finding excuses for this receptionist who was more likely enjoying their little power trip at the OP and her daughter's expense.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119788559#Comment_119788559

Did you read it?

Its wasn't making just an appointment. It was skipping the queue to get a much earlier place than was available at that time.

Ringing back later (time is a thing) with more information is entirely different.

The receptionist is irrelevant it just how queues, time, priority and resource planning works.

Ring the NCT won't give them the reg, they won't book an appointment for you.

Ring back 30 mins later with the reg saying its up this week, they get a priority booking

1: The first NCT operator is on a power trip

2:They aren't a mechanic I'm not telling them anything.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119788619#Comment_119788619

Yes I did. In detail.

She didn't ask to skip any queue. They weren't fully booked and had more appointments available. You must have missed that when you read it.

I don't know what you're even waffling about making a stupid comparison to booking an NCT.

Flinty997

Oh there was whole complicated saga about why it has to be at certain time to suit the person's complicated and lengthy travel arrangements. They basically wanted to walk in when they arrived whenever that was going to be, seeing a specific doctor with no reason given.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119788797#Comment_119788797

That's your interpretation.

Mine is:

(a) She asked for an appointment as late in the day as possible due to work and having to make a 2 hour journey to get to the surgery.

(b) She asked to see her regular GP, if possible, or if not another female GP, due to the intimate and delicate nature of the problem.

(c) She gave more than enough basic information, that the receptionist should have been able to work off.

None of the above, were unreasonable requests, in my opinion. And given there were appointments available, should not have caused such an issue.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119788455#Comment_119788455

I’m not underestimating their control or giving anyone much credit at all really. They’re doing their jobs as I would expect them to do their jobs. The OPs and your expectations of how they should do their jobs are just very different from mine.

You made the point earlier about at what point you determined there was enough information to schedule an appointment in accordance with the person’s wishes, and you gave your criteria. My criteria are even less demanding than yours - the patients a woman? The four receptionists should clear all six GPs schedules and see that she is seen to immediately.

Ideally speaking, of course.

In reality however, I’m fully conscious of the kinds of demands not only on GPs time, but also on receptionists time, particularly in a modern surgery where there are a number of GPs co-located. The Irish Patients Association reported in 2018 that the average number of patients per GP nationally was 861; the lowest 442, the highest 1,218.

https://www.thejournal.ie/gp-breakdown-country-3971888-Apr2018/

Whatever way you look at it those are extraordinary numbers, and indicative of the kind of pressure on GPs time. It’s just not the case any more that it once was when it was usually a GPs wife handled the administrative side of the business. Nowadays they need full-time professional administrative support staff. You’ve already characterised them as gatekeepers and decided that one of them in the OPs case must have been lying, and a person shouldn’t have to explain why they need to be treated as a priority without sufficient explanation as to why they need priority treatment.

Had the OP not explained why their daughter needed priority treatment (and I agree, they obviously did!), then could you still hold the same principle that nobody should have to explain why they need to be seen by the GP, just that they need to be seen at a time which suits them, for a matter they’re only willing to discuss with a GP of their preference, and argue that it’s unreasonable or unfair that the gatekeeper (I won’t quibble) is in the wrong for not immediately accommodating them?

This is why I’m in two minds about the whole situation, because some people really do have very different and often times unrealistic expectations of GPs surgeries. It’s great if they’re receiving the service they expect, but when they’re not, it doesn’t automatically mean the gatekeepers are the people at fault. They’re quite literally just trying to do their jobs. I don’t expect any more of them than that, and I’m certainly not giving them too much credit when that’s all they’re doing is what’s expected of them by their employers.

Leg End Reject

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789045#Comment_119789045

the patients a woman? The four receptionists should clear all six GPs schedules and see that she is seen to immediately.

What the actual fcuk do you mean by that?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789064#Comment_119789064

Within the context in which I posted it, it’s self-explanatory -

You made the point earlier about at what point you determined there was enough information to schedule an appointment in accordance with the person’s wishes, and you gave your criteria. My criteria are even less demanding than yours - the patients a woman? The four receptionists should clear all six GPs schedules and see that she is seen to immediately.

Ideally speaking, of course.

@[Deleted User] has her criteria by which she argues patients should ideally be prioritised, mine are even less demanding. Both of course are only ideally speaking which suit ourselves.

Flinty997

Lol.

You missed that all Drs should be on the phone triaging the wait-list. The most demanding and wealthy should get even higher priority.

Unlimited resources and staffing.

Leg End Reject

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789114#Comment_119789114

Why should a woman be prioritised? That's incredibly condescending and borderline creepy.

Leg End Reject

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789161#Comment_119789161

The most demanding and wealthy should get even higher priority.

Again, that's all in your head. Do you need a lie down?

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789217#Comment_119789217

Given we were both pulling criteria out of thin air, it seemed as arbitrary as anything else so I just went with it. First thing that came to mind is all.

Leg End Reject

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789281#Comment_119789281

Making stuff up so to be contrary.

My GP receptionist is a bitter woman.Every call in is a battle to get any appointment made.Your bedside manner definitively needs work.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789294#Comment_119789294

Not to be contrary, but to make a point - whatever criteria either I or @[Deleted User] suggest are relevant, are just our own ideal criteria. They have no bearing on reality where it’s not up to the patient to determine what criteria are relevant, it’s up to the person who is scheduling appointments on behalf of their employer in accordance with their employers criteria.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789281#Comment_119789281

So in other words, you're making it up as you go along. Gotcha.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789325#Comment_119789325

Well so far only the criteria. Isn’t that what you’re doing too? It’s hardly going for a gotcha in that case, is it? Might be a gotcha if I tried to use something you said earlier against you, but engaging in exactly the same behaviour as you’re doing is hardly the stuff of a gotcha.

I’m not so petty as to bother my arse to stoop to that sort of nonsense either tbh.

Ave Sodalis

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789114#Comment_119789114

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789161#Comment_119789161

By the sounds of it, I must be in the only major GP service in the country that doesn't have receptionists ask too many questions. I personally wouldn't mind if they did ask questions because they've handled containers of every sort of bodily fluid samples more often than my GP. I figure at this point, they have the right to know why... but they don't ask. They give me an appointment based on what they have and what suits me. The one or two times I've had a more urgent reason for going, they squeeze me in. Once, I wasn't sure if it was something that needed to be seen urgently, so the doctor gave me a two minute phone call... and told me to come straight in. Receptionists still had no idea why I was there.

Ye are making it out to be a much bigger issue to not disclose private information than it needs to be. In the OP's case, I think she may have given more information to those receptionists than I have in 30 or so years.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789340#Comment_119789340

Tbh, I have literally no clue what you are even on about, or what point you're trying to make, and I'm not really bothered either.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789354#Comment_119789354

If your GP allows you to skip to the top of the queue for no reason why doesn't every other person do it.

As one poster already said he'd lie to queue skip even if it wasn't urgent.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789354#Comment_119789354

Ahh hardly 😁 Receptionists are hardly likely to ask questions when they’re familiar with the patient’s medical history anyway, I’d assume they’re familiar with my medical history anyway, just that they’re absolutely uninterested in it, like the many hundreds of other patients they have on their books.

It’s the idea though that they’re not supposed to inquire about a patients supposed urgency when they’re being asked to make an appointment is what I find perplexing, receptionists aren’t employed by the patient, and it’s absolutely not the patients who get to decide how they should do their job.

At the same time, I get that people have boundaries and want their privacy respected and they’re perfectly entitled to refuse to disclose information which the receptionist sees as relevant. It’s just more difficult for the receptionist to make an appointment for them in those circumstances, but as long as they remain professional about it, there shouldn’t be an issue.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789373#Comment_119789373

The wait-list has order. Especially for finite resources.

Leg End Reject

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789433#Comment_119789433

She, hence I said lump in my breast.

And for the last time I'd lie to avoid discussing private information with a receptionist.

The poster you quoted also never said her GP allowed her to skip to the top of the queue.

They give me an appointment based on what they have and what suits me. The one or two times I've had a more urgent reason for going, they squeeze me in. Once, I wasn't sure if it was something that needed to be seen urgently, so the doctor gave me a two minute phone call... and told me to come straight in.

No where did the poster claim that. Why do you blatantly misrepresent posts?

Flinty997

Well everyone should lie with the same lie then. Otherwise they'll sit at the bottom of the list forever.

Leg End Reject

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789491#Comment_119789491

Or receptionists could schedule appointments on a first come, first served basis after asking if it's urgent, rather than expecting a list of symptoms.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789588#Comment_119789588

The problem with that idea is that in reality there are people who imagine every time they need to see a doctor, it’s urgent, and they want to be seen asap, without an appointment. They aren’t interested in first come, first served, which would be impractical anyway with regards to scheduling appointments.

It might be relevant for walk-ins, and even then I’m not sure because I’ve been in situations where once at least I’ve had someone ask to go ahead of me. They obviously thought their need to see the doctor was more urgent than mine. Kinda understandable if I look at it from their perspective, but it’s not like I needed to know they had stomach ulcers, the constant belching and farting beside me were a giveaway that something wasn’t right.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789588#Comment_119789588

There is no point asking anything. Because as people have said they are willing to say anything to jump the queue.

They they wonder why they aren't believed and are stonewalled.

Leg End Reject

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789491#Comment_119789491

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789695#Comment_119789695

You're contradicting yourself now.

Leg End Reject

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789664#Comment_119789664

Get your appointment and take or leave it.

As for your last part, all you had to do in that situation is say no.

It's not complicated.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789878#Comment_119789878

First part - wouldn’t be an issue for me, I don’t think in the first place the receptionist isn’t entitled to know why I need an appointment.

Second part - that’s all I did, I don’t make big dramas out of nothing.

None of this stuff is complicated.

Ave Sodalis

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119789433#Comment_119789433

Ah, I should have looked at who I was quoting. I would explain how that's not what the post said, nor what the other poster was saying, but you already know it.

Flinty997

I could care less who said what or when.

The point is only if you don't want the receptionist managing/triaging the waitlist supported by the medical staff, or knowing your details, looking at your files. What are are the alternative suggestions. Nothing "viable" has been suggested. Lie, do it first come first served, use medical staff. These are nonsense impractical suggestions, as was already explained.

The systems that exist aren't ideal but it has come into place (in surgeries where they do this) due to lack of resources and/or people being obnoxious. A few of our local GPs do not answer the phone directly, you have a leave a message. Because the staff were being abused so often on the phone or the desk. I know people who work in GPs and the stories you hear are horrendous.

The impatience and lack of empathy on this thread for people working in difficult situations, is pretty eye opening. No wonder they have such problems retaining staff and its a service in crisis.

At the surgery I attend they do not answer any calls, all go to voicemail. They later phone you back to offer an appointment . However they way prefer you to request an appointment by email, which I always do.

I state whether the appointment is urgent or not, eg if I am coughing up blood (have had pneumonia a few times) I would state that and maybe get a same day or next morning appointment, but more likely a doctor would phone me later and forward prescription to chemist for an antibiotic and follow up on how I am next day or two, which has worked out well.

If I ever have serious breathing difficulty in addition, I attend hospital directly, where they would put me on oxygen, nebulisers & a couple of days IV antibiotics.

If it is something more routine, like looking for an appointment with a view to a possible consultant referral to see about an increasingly bothersome but non urgent issue, then I specify any appointment within the next week, and preferred doctor.

The receptionists are not great where I attend, but using email I don’t usually have to talk to them much. 🙂

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119790782#Comment_119790782

I would agree they must have a basic triage system as agreed with their employing doctors. New onset chest pain of a nature never felt before, especially in over 30s would be an indication to direct patient to A&E, coughing some blood with a bit of fever but without shortness of breath would be indicative of the need for urgent consultation (by phone if needed) within next several hours by doctor. A breast lump, though not ideally, could wait a day or two, a consultation for arthritis referral could usually wait a week or two. Receptionists would have been given a certain basic amount of training in triage, and some would get pretty good at this.

Ave Sodalis

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119790782#Comment_119790782

Absolutely nobody here is saying working as receptionist (in any field) is an easy job. Not one. I've family who work in health care and an extended family member who worked as a GP receptionist for several years before moving to care work. Not a single person is saying the staff in any way deserve to be abused or should take abuse in any way. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is how much information a receptionist should get vs how much information people should be willing to say to a member of staff who does not have medical training and does not have a registering body.

Flinty997

The word 'easy' isn't in what you quoted.

People don't trust the receptionist's to be professional enough to do their job, or handle anyone's data. Or be an interface between doctors and patients. Fine.

But that's what they do. They are administration.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119790782#Comment_119790782

What a load of rubbish.

But off course you would have more, and actually expect others to have more - empathy for the poor "abused" gatekeepers, than the actual patients they are meant to be facilitating. You know, the ill people who just want to see their doctor without having to go through an interrogation or divest themselves of their privacy or their dignity in order to be deemed worthy of an appointment?

I've worked in difficult public facing roles, and I've taken abuse from the public - but I've witnessed some of these receptionists in action and they are on another level altogether and I'm not surprised many of them get abused. Some of them act like some kind of little gods, and take pleasure in their little power trips, and this was going on long before covid or any crisis of staffing. Doctors seem to have a talent for finding and hiring these people. Gatekeeper #1 in the OP's original post sounds like a nasty piece of work, and definitely one of that type.

Flinty997

There you go the crisis in GPs is a load of rubbish. Guess that sums it up.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119791467#Comment_119791467

No, the rubbish I was referring to, was your opinion.

You like trying to misrepresent what other posters say, don't you Flinty997?

Glad to see other posters have noticed the same.

Graces7

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119791393#Comment_119791393

Excllent post. It was very very bad in the UK and I still wonder if the GPs ever realised how the reception staff treated the patients... and of course these are patients in a stressful situation often.

Ave Sodalis

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119791326#Comment_119791326

The word 'easy' isn't in what you quoted.

Sorry, is "Absolutely nobody here is saying working as receptionist (in any field) isn't a difficult job" better? Being disingenuous isn't helpful to anyone.

Doctors, nurses, consultants, even vet med staff are held accountable by a governing body. Receptionists are not, so I can see why people may not be happy saying exactly what's wrong with them. It can already be difficult enough for some people to tell a doctor who is sworn to secrecy, in a private room about certain topics, never mind a receptionist who is not under such constraints and may be within earshot of the general public. The OP gave more than enough information for the receptionist to use to make an appointment.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119791467#Comment_119791467

Once again, not what the poster was saying.

The OP gave more than enough information for the receptionist to use to make an appointment.

This, exactly.

Taking this thread back to what it was supposed to be about, the OP rang for an appointment, explained the situation her daughter was in as best she could, asked for a female doctor and explained - when asked - that it was a delicate private matter.

I don't know what more she was expected to say, or why the receptionist kept insisting that she "needed to know" exactly what the private matter was.

The OP hasn't come back to the thread, but I hope at least, she realises not everyone here thinks she was the problem.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119791660#Comment_119791660

I said difficult situation not job. Being disingenuous isn't helpful to anyone.

The OP gave this thread more information (and had to delete it) than the person on the phone. There's a logic disconnect with that, IMO.

Graces7

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119791660#Comment_119791660

And it really is none of their business what is wrong with the patients who all have a right to see the doctor with no such hindrance.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119791635#Comment_119791635

The instructions they are following are usually coming from the GPs and/or practise manager. It very unlikely the Admin/Reception staff are deciding how to deal with patients on their own. They would have meetings where the procedure to be followed is set down. If in doubt they would consult with the doctor. Where a patient won't deal with the admin staff it will be up to the doctor to deal with them as they see fit. As some have mentioned thats often a call back from the doctor. They would review incidents and situations that arise and revise accordingly.

Depends of course if its a large practise with many doctors. Many GPs are on their own, with just one admin person, who may not even be full time.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119791606#Comment_119791606

I don’t think Flinty was arguing that anyone should have more empathy for gatekeepers, he was pointing out the lack of any empathy whatsoever in this thread.

I understand exactly where you’re coming from, but gatekeepers aren’t asking standard questions with the intent of depriving anyone of their dignity or privacy in order to deem anyone worthy of an appointment. You’ve decided to characterise their behaviour as such, based upon your own bad experiences and those who you’ve heard of.

I wouldn’t expect anyone in any employment to be accommodating towards someone who is treating them with suspicion, let alone outright contempt.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119791606#Comment_119791606

The bit you quoted says its a service in crisis. If you want to selectively quote I would suggest copy and paste and quote it specifically.

If its sweeping comment. Perhaps make that clearer. I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me. It's a robust discussion.