See a computer instead of a doctor?

Might be useful as a sort of triage? We have telephone appts here which can be good if you just have straightforward questions to ask a Dr. If need be you can then come in and see them. Saves a huge amount of time and can be very reassuring.

It would mean seeing and talking to a doctor, via a computer, where s/he can see you. So yes, a perfectly good way of giving advice and a form of triage, and much better than phone- as Doctor can see your rash, etc. Of course if there is any doubt about whether BP has to be checked, etc- s/he will ask you to come in. Many patients are frequent returners, who have their BP and basics checked very regularly anyhow.

Totally in favour.

I would be quite happy to see a GP via computer link if what I wanted was straightforward. I already monitor my own BP as I have my own BP machine and there is also one available for self-use in the local surgery. I often use the telephone service for my ongoing health needs rather than go into the surgery - it saves time for both me and the GP. If there is something that I feel I really need to see a GP about then I would attend the surgery.

depends what i wanted to talk about, but overall happy enough to try it

No, so much of being a good doctor is about watching the patient as they walk into the room, sit down, their demeanour, tiny little clues from looks, complexion skin tone, often things the doctor notices subliminally rather than consciously, but they tell the doctor as much about the patient and their illness as a recital of symptoms. Little of this is possible of a computer link.

My FiL's GP insisted on seeing him every month, even though his only problem, ostensibly, was high blood pressure, but he could tell by looking that there were more problems than he would admit to, and, eventually, after collapsing in the street and being helped home the GP called and got him to talk and he was eventually diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. No computer consultation could have done what the GP did by observation and persistence.

I think there's a place for it .

Certainly if it's something simple ... how nice to not have to sit with all the other people coughing and spluttering. I take my blood pressure daily and send it to my GP every 3 months for use in my quarterly diabetes check .

I could easily do my prescription review this way .

I know my daughters would like something like this to use for reassurance when the little ones have the odd issue. It could always be followed up by an in person appt.

Sometimes you just want to ask a specific question eg 'did you make that referral?' or similar. No need to take up a GPs precious time. I'm still appalled at the huge number of failed appointments posted up at reception in GP surgeries. So many people treating a visit to the Dr as something not to bother about.

Something has to be done as the NHS as we know it is not sustainable. It is on the point of collapse.

My daughter in law, living in California, hardly ever sees a doctor - it is all on line there. Certainly means you don't sit in waiting rooms with snivelling children and other germ-spreaders, or spreading germs yourself.

Saves time and travelling, costs less, and she gets a written report back by e-mail, confirming the diagnosis, and repeating the instructions for medication.

For simple things, it would be brilliant. I occasionally get strep throat. I know what it is and what is required in terms of antibiotics and how much nicer it would be to access what I need without sitting feeling like death warmed up in a busy surgery.

Obviously more complex problems need to be dealt with in person but I think we should be using new technology to our advantage.

I think modern technology has a great deal to offer us in terms of supporting our own health and well being and helping the NHS and Social Services to manage their finite resources and I would have no problem at all with it (technomedicine and telemedicine). Quite often I read up from the NHS Choices website which I think is a brilliant resource.

The NHS is sustainable. The government just chooses not to spend money on it as it wants to privatise it.

The NHS is in post-truth land.
60% of NHS trusts in deficit. Why? Because the government says it has to save so much.
NHS questions on NHS now on 131 freeview. Theresa May being told she is not telling the truth.

I think there's a place for it

Certainly if it's something simple ... how nice to not have to sit with all the other people coughing and spluttering.

I agree NanandGrampy

There plenty of conditions where Dr Google can be the first port of call. Surely no one would take up a GPs time for Athlete's Foot, dandruff, constipation......would they???

Except of course my BiL!!!

Jane10- I agree. And truly, DNAs should be charged and even more those who don't turn up for a hospital appointment, and even more for actual surgery. The NHS should treat all for free- but not the time wasters- they make queues longer and the cost is massive.

And anyone with a really genuine excuse- real emergency, should be able to prove it. Some do it again, and again and again. When I went for last knee op in UK, there were several people that didn't turn up fkr their OPERATION. Nurse and surgeon said it happens every day.

mumofbadboys- the NHS is deliberately being placed at the point of collapse- in order to make privatisation acceptable as the only alternative. It is a POLITICAL CHOICE - most other developed countries choose to spend more % of GDP on health care than the UK.

I always find it strange when doctors tell you not to get your info from the internet, yet on the screen in the surgery is a loop of information about various diseases read out by Doctor Sarah Brewer and telling you to get online to manage your health.

Durhamjen my daughter is a trainee medic and they are taught to use the internet as a valuable resource, both as doctors and for patients. Older doctors may not be so keen but I dare say the same was said when the first medical encyclopaedias were printed!

I think the danger of the internet is knowing which are reliable sources of information and which are the 'whacky' ones.

Good points, both of them Sue

Yes, SueDonim. In 2013 I had an aortic dissection, and if it wasn't for the internet, I wouldn't have known anything about it. Aneurysms are well known, but not dissections. I still go on the website, for reassurance every so often.
Mind you, my son did tell me to wait until I was out of hospital before looking at it and finding out how lucky I am.

When I was working in NHS I contributed to specific information for a local NHS website just for GPs. It contained diagnostic red flags and a flow chart for what to do as well as lists of relevant local resources for them to tell patients about. It was a practical thing for them to use.