Dear Eddie
I feel I must comment on the CDO for England’s letter in your January edition, where he takes issue with the article written by Nilesh Patel.
Nilesh was writing about the variance in provision of non mandatory services but Dr Cockcroft seems to have misinterpreted the article. It is interesting that the CDO is making conclusions about care pathways within any new NHS contracting, and I hope that a more robust evaluation takes place before such a contract is rolled out. It is also unclear where DwSi in endodontics will “appear” from for the 3 level system he praises in his letter.
Dr Patel’s article clearly highlighted how difficult it was in many areas to get patients seen for advanced care, and here in Birmingham referrals for difficult molar endodontics are rarely available nor commissioned, meaning patients who cannot afford private provision do end up with a shortened arch. Dr Cockcroft comments on the “success” that 590,000 course of treatment contained endodontic care but does not comment on how this has dropped from nearly a million pre 2006, nor what percentage of these are complex molar root treatments.
It also seems bizarre that the CDO is now a supporter of a unified commissioner of NHS Dentistry, when for so long he has trumpeted local commissioning and the flexibility of PCTs. Also, if the DoH have great aspirations of Local Dental Networks why are they starving them of funds to operate, giving pennies per head of population, compared to the £25 per head that GP Commissioning Consortia Groups are funded?
I am hoping that we move away as soon as possible from the 2006 contract with its UDA system that the CDO has spoken so much in favour of in the past, but we need to accept that mistakes have been made, and that if a new contract is to work, there will need to be a great expansion of specialist care to allow care pathways a chance.
As professionals we all learn from our mistakes to improve our outcomes.
Regards
Eddie Crouch, Honorary Secretary, Birmingham LDC
Dear Eddie,
Time for some positive thinking?
As a company that is at the forefront of online professional `search`, we have witnessed the rapid growth of new business opportunities driven by `verified` customer feedback and self-edited `profile pages` on the websites that we run and manage.
We were, therefore, really dismayed at the generally negative views expressed on the value of patient feedback that recently appeared in The Dentist (December issue, 'Public Opinion' p22/23). Admittedly these comments were mainly specific to the NHS Choices website, but they failed to mention the potential for many dentists to turn to other 'proven formula' feedback based search sites to generate new private patients.
The probability is that online search supported by feedback will turn out to be one of the most remarkable marketing tools, especially for local services like dentistry. If you have ever wondered why local mapping with embedded information is so important to companies like Google and Apple then you should read The Economist article in their issue dated October 27, entitled `A sense of place`; this will really open your eyes to what is coming.
It`s also worth mentioning that positive patient feedback can, apart from delivering confident, prospective patients to your door, help you develop your 'product' into a service that you can be even more proud of!
So, the message to dentists should be that you can easily take advantage of all the amazing benefits of search and user feedback.
Best Wishes,
Lisa Beale, head of
Checkaprofessional.com
Editorial reply
Eddie Crouch’s article in December was followed by a piece from lawyer Alexander Hall in the January issue, again discussing the problems associated with the NHS Choices website. I would have to disagree and say I don’t think the articles are negative towards the notion of feedback.
I’m sure almost everyone would accept feedback is a necessary part of progression, whether for a product, business (or dental magazine). By seeing what patients like and dislike practices can adapt to provide the service and support needed.
The articles relate specifically to problems surrounding the NHS Choices website. So it isn’t so much that the articles are negative towards feedback, more they question whether the posts on that site are reflective of patient feedback. Is it really patient feedback, or are the positive comments from dental staff hoping to improve a practice’s reputation and the negative comments from rival dentists trying to ruin it?
The lack of moderation and anonymity of posters detracts from the authority of the comments. A post could be erroneous or malicious, and have a real impact on a practice’s goodwill – yet there seems to be little legal recourse a wronged dentist can take. This is a perfectly valid point to be made; I hope every reader who has seen the articles on the subject has logged onto the NHS Choices website to view the comments on their practice.
Eddie MacKenzie