Search

EDITOR, — Jamie Bahrami gives a predictable view of education and vocational training in general practice.1 A recent paper from the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts2 and General Practice Education and Training from the Royal College of General Practitioners,3 to which his editorial alludes, are other recent contributions. Now that we have heard from NHS managers and “academic” general practitioners, I seek to give a view from those on whom change will be visited. Bahrami casts doubt on the future of the Joint Committee on Postgraduate Training for General Practice, supports the recommendation for increased fiscal power for regional advisers, and welcomes the bid by the Royal College of General Practitioners for untramelled power in matters of education. Within the joint committee, representatives from the General Medical Services Committee realise that the status quo is untenable and that the world of education must develop; members from the Royal College of General Practitioners are reminded that as the college represents only just over half of general practitioners its aspirations must be tempered by the lack of a mandate from its own discipline. The joint committee is therefore of increasing importance. Independent fiscal powers for regional advisers …

Editor—Kessler et al assessed the ability of general practitioners to diagnose depression and anxiety as defined by the general health questionnaire (GHQ-12).1 Unfortunately, they have miscalculated their results; from their data, the general practitioners had a sensitivity of 36% and a specificity of 91%. These figures suggest that the participating general practitioners—at least in their day to day practice—shared Heath’s opinion in her commentary.1 Most patients with a score >3 on the general health questionnaire do not have a diagnosable psychiatric condition.