Should a gp receptionist ask you your personal business
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
#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.
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.
You've described the carryon of your staff, far from professional I'm afraid.
The lie would be to prevent discussing private information with a receptionist who has no medical training. I would explain that to the doctor and inform them I wouldn't be discussing that information with a receptionist. How many times do you need me to explain this?
If I'm at the doctor I actually need to be there, so I'm not "taking an appointment from someone else", I need to see a doctor.
Fair enough, to cut through all the BS back and forth - your own ideas of perceiving receptionists as gatekeepers is colouring your judgment IMO. The conflict arose out of the receptionist informing the OP about the surgeries policies regarding patient appointments, which didn’t suit either the OP or her daughter. The receptionist wasn’t unwilling to make an appointment, they just weren’t able to accommodate the OP in accordance with theirs or their daughter’s preferences. It’s understandably upsetting for the OP and their daughter, but receptionists aren’t in a position to make those sorts of decisions outside their control because it’s the nature of community healthcare that because they are offering their services to the public, they’re operating under certain constraints, like the fact that GP’s surgeries are overwhelmed and they need to be able to prioritise appointments on the basis of resources and services available.
Inevitably that leaves people who feel they are more important than others feeling like they aren’t being prioritised in accordance with their impression of their own importance. That’s not a receptionist issue, it’s an issue that the person’s expectations aren’t being met. The receptionist shouldn’t need to explain why their expectations can’t be met when it should be obvious that the surgery just doesn’t have the capacity to make an appointment whenever the person decides they want one with a GP of their preference. Anyone is of course entitled to make a complaint. Receptionists deal with them all the time too, it’s why in the surgery I go to they had to put up a notice that anyone being abusive towards staff will be asked to leave.
My staff are very professional.
Out of curiosity, if you are concerned about/object to giving the Reception staff your symptoms, what difference does it make to you if the symptoms you give are truthful or not? You are still informing the Receptions about symptoms.
And you have admitted that you would lie about your symptoms to get an appointment, how low is that? Would it not bother you that you could be taking a priority appointment ahead of someone with a genuine need of an urgent appointment? it really is disgusting.
I'd get an appointment if I was honest about my symptoms too so that a moot point. Save me the sanctimonious nonsense when you openly admitted the staff in your practice are unprofessional.
Making an appointment for an adult who is capable of making their own is a fool's errand. Back and forth about times...what a waste of your time and the receptionist's time who probably has calls queued behind yours.
It makes sense for the receptionist to slot in emergency appointments for very unwell people who are not life or death A&E but need to be treated in the next 48 hours. If we had more GP's it could take significant pressure off A&E departments. But if a patient (patient, NOT parent of an adult!) states that it is a personal matter, requests a female GP and that they need an appointment that week then that's more than enough information.
People like you who lie about their symptoms to get appointments ahead of people who may genuinely be sick and need to be prioritised.
Do you keep missing the part where I would explain why I lied to my GP?
If you want to discuss your symptoms with a receptionist you're free to do so, I won't.
This nonsense of Old people not being online in 2022 needs to be put out to pasture. Pensioners are renewing driving licences, passports etc online, ordering groceries, booking holidays and banking online. We're well able to use an appointment app. Your Mam is far from alone.
As for the crux if the topic. GP practices need to be able to determine if an appointment is urgent. The receptionists usually ask some questions but I've never known them to look for any great detail.
We have experienced staff who deal with people such as yourself on a daily basis. The reality is that not every patient can get the appointment they want, when they want.
People such as myself? Can you point out where I stated that I wanted an appointment at a time that suits me? I'll give you a hint - I didn't. I've said I expect an appointment when one is available and that non-urgent appointments should be booked on a first come, first served basis. I'm not abusive or difficult.
All I've said is that I won't discuss my symptoms with a receptionist, you've invented the rest.
You're the classic boy who cried wolf. We know how that ends.
We don’t have issues, both GP and Dentists lists are closed to new patients as they are at capacity. We have experienced staff who deal with people such as yourself on a daily basis. The reality is that not every patient can get the appointment they want, when they want. So the GPs set protocols to be followed when gaining the information from the patient, which in turn allows them to prioritise people who need to be seen sooner. If you don’t want to tell the Receptionist why you need an urgent appointment, I don’t see how you expect to be given priority over other patients looking for appointments. If you lie, then obviously the GP will become aware of this when you attend, which of course makes them suspicious the next time you call. And they do remember, and attach a note to your file about it.
You think editing posts illustrates some issue?
These days they have computer systems with patient records. If a patient is causing problems, like lying about symptoms, the doc is likely to make a note on their file. Some people even get blacklisted or flagged due to abusive behaviour etc.
They can ask if it's an emergency and book appointments for all answer "No" on a first come, first served basis. It's not exactly rocket science now, is it?
If anyone says it is an emergency they can be slotted in. If a patient routinely lies the GP can have a word.
Now, before you counter that I said I would lie - I would only lie if I was expected to explain my symptoms to a receptionist, and I would explain same to my GP. I don't know how many times I need to say this, but there it is again for posterity.
So end of the list.
Putting someone on the end of a list doesn't require any knowledge of anything.
TL:DR.
Bottom line, just how much detail do you expect a patient to go into with a receptionist in order to tick enough boxes to satisfy them (a medically unqualified person) that an appointment is needed?
Taking this back to the case of the OP (again, not me) she rang and asked for an appointment (for her daughter - irrelevant) and said it was urgent (she did not say it was an emergency). When asked why, she stated it was a problem of a very private and personal intimate nature and she requested a female GP. That right there, should have been more than enough information for the receptionist to book the appointment on, but she continued to press the OP for more details, and stating she "needed to know".
Her daughter's issue was not the kind of emergency that needed a visit A&E, but I think it was fair to say it was urgent, and not something that could be left unchecked and without treatment for weeks.
From the OP's account, Gatekeeper #1 was snotty and difficult from the get-go.
Now, to cut through all this bullshit back and forth, as far as I am concerned, Gatekeeper #1 was the problem here, and a complaint about her handling of the situation from either the OP, or the OP's daughter, to the GP is absolutely warranted, and I hope they make one.
No, it's unprofessional. If that's how you like to operate I'm not surprised you have issues.
You keep editing your posts, this was added to your previous one.
The other 100 people looking for the appointment, their €60 is equally if not more appreciated if you are a problem.
I'm not "a problem". I'm polite and courteous but I will not discuss my private health information with a receptionist. If you look at one of my earlier posts in this thread I said I would explain to the GP why I lied and that I wouldn't discuss symptoms with a receptionist in the future.
That could be one way of looking at it, the other way is that they don’t suffer fools easily.
Your place doesn't sound very professional and your receptionists sound like they're on power trips.
I remember when I started working after university 20 years ago, my wages were piss poor, and I wasnt eligible for a medical card, but I could not afford medical healthcare. I am not lying or exaggerating. I got up at 6am, commuted,worked 8am till near 6pm, commuted home. By the time rent, car costs, etc were paid, I was skint till next weeks pay. I remember having a UTI but did not have the money to see a GP & pay for antibiotics. I suffered on.
So before anyone on medical cards thinks people without medical cards can afford medical care, please think again.
Unsurprisingly Reception staff remember the ones that cause problems. Our staff have memories like elephants and will often say to the GPs/Specialists/Dentists that this is the guy that lied or was abusive the last time he was here.
When they have an appointment available.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d5a8197d7274f92eab37915a6d9f12a1.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a46418388544fe9f8f6352b57fb2f921.svg)
