u/MisterMedicalMagpie

Like the title says. My region's training is almost entirely focused on communicating with almost no time dedicated to the actual clinical aspects of GP. I know how to talk to patients, that's never been an issue, but sometimes dealing with simple complaints is difficult when I don't know the mechanisms for handling them in primary care.

For instance seeing a patient with a rash - rashes almost never look exactly like reference pictures on line, so diagnosing the exact nature of a skin complaint is tricky. Say I don't think it's an urgent or emergency complaint - then what? Just try treating it? Investigate? What?

I know this sounds daft but I feel like I'm not being taught how to deal with the vague stuff and I want to improve my confidence around diagnostic uncertainty.

Currently setting a completion date, and out of curiosity looked at currently available mortgage products to realise that the deal I have from Santander is now £50 a month cheaper than it was at the start of the process.

Completion is likely to take about 1 month and a half.

Is it worth contacting my mortgage broker to see if I can get us the cheaper rate or is it too late now that we're setting a completion date? Does renegotiating risk losing the current deal?

I'm trying to sort out my policies through an advisor. She essentially asked me what price I was willing to pay and found quotes that matched it. These policies would include full income protection if I cannot work, and full mortgage repayment in the event of critical illness (which from my understanding does not necessarily mean I can't work).

The sum total is about £96.00 per month. I didn't have any context for this but when I told my couple friends about this they claimed they had the same coverage on a shared plan for about £40 per month TOTAL which covers them both.

Are they mistaken and likely have a lesser product or am I just naive and uncertain of the usual going rate for these policies?

I haven't smoked in about 5 years, and probably only did habitually for maybe 2 years and when I did it was infrequent, but the insurers I'm looking at classify this as a past/ex-smoker for insurance purposes. I don't think I've ever declared anywhere that I was a smoker, and I consider the amount of cigarettes I smoked to be low relative to higher risk people.

How dramatically does this affect life/income protection policy rates?

Nearing completion of a house purchase, but a discussion regarding an attic room has turned into an ongoing headache. Victorian Terrace 3/4 bed with habitable attic.

Our surveyor looked at the loft and couldn't authenticate whether it was a conversion or an original floor of the property and has been quite non-committal. Essentially he's said "it's old, and if it were proved to be structurally unsound then it shouldn't be used for habitation". Part of me thinks that he's covering his arse here just in case it did becomes a problem later on.

However, the seller's have kindly forwarded us sections of their original survey with statements by their surveyor who has basically said that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the attic IS an original feature of the house and was constructed to be a bedroom. They've cited specific time-specific building practices and said that rooms like this are typical of houses in this area of this age. So we have it IN WRITING, from the seller that the room is original.

What we do know is that there is no indemnity risk because no work in recent memory has been done to it, and it's clearly been used as a bedroom for DECADES.

Our solicitor has basically said that this is as good as we're going to get, and there is no way of getting any more information outside of a structural survey, which they seem to be trying to dissuade us from doing.

At what point can you just assume it's original and leave it at that? There are no records on the searches regarding either the original construction of the house, or any later conversion. For my purposes, I just want to know I can do a very simple, non-structural redecoration of the room, but my partner is more concerned. The house has also sold multiple times in the last 20 years without issue.

TIA.

EDIT: for clarification; OUR surveyor has said that the room doesn't meet building regulations or fire-safety requirements, but he's compared it to modern standards, and not the standards for a historic room, essentially because he was uncertain of the age

I'm hoping someone can offer some advice because I feel like we've hit a brick wall with a house purchase.

My partner and I are in the process of buying what feels like the perfect house, with one major exception: it has a very outdated loft conversion that's currently split into two bedrooms. Our plan was to renovate the loft after completion, but our surveyor has raised concerns about whether that's actually possible under current building regulations.

The loft is completely undocumented. It appears to have been converted sometime between the 1960s and 1990s, and no plans or paperwork have been found to show whether it was originally built as habitable space.

Our surveyor has been very honest and said that if we leave the loft largely as it is, we can continue using it as two bedrooms and even sell the property in the future with the loft bedrooms as they are. However, if we want to carry out any structural work, we'd first need to apply for regularisation. That process could result in the rooms no longer being classed as bedrooms until any required work is completed and signed off.

There are a few internal walls in the loft that I suspect are just non-loadbearing stud walls, which we'd ideally like to remove, but without a structural survey there's no way to know for sure.

The surveyor also said this situation is fairly common, especially in our area where many older homes have loft conversions completed decades ago without the paperwork you'd expect today.

It's all left us feeling quite anxious because it seems like a bit of a legal grey area, and we're struggling to decide whether to proceed.

Has anyone been in a similar situation? Did you go ahead with the purchase, and if so, how did things work out? Any advice or experiences would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance!

Due to an unfortunate last minute change I've had my next placement moved to a practice 1 hour 15 minutes from where I live.

Obviously this means I'm going to be in my car a lot everyday with my AKT coming up.

Anyone recommend any useful podcasts or resources I can use whilst on the drive in?

Just finished my last day of ST1 before taking some annual leave before August. I've just done my second GP rotation (GP first and third rotation) and I just want to cry.

I thought I wanted to do GP, it's the only specialty I've focussed on doing since medical school and I got home last night and realised I fucking hated this rotation. My first rotation was good, nice practice, good support but I can't help but think it was a lot easier because less was expected for me.

This rotation has been hell every single day. Constantly getting it in the neck for not getting tasks completed, normally at least one home visit per day, being expected to see 2-3 extra patients per session (16-18 patients per day), and feeling like I'm constantly being criticised for not keeping up.

I feel like I can't put up with this and it's making me question if I've made a massive mistake. I'm panicking and thinking I should apply for a different specialty or just quit medicine but I never planned for this and I have no idea what I would or should do.

I've submitted a request for the increased annual leave entitlement (32 days) that applies from my sixth year working in the NHS, which starts next year.

My service history is: Foundation training, followed by two years of full-time bank work (37.5 hours/week), and I'm now one year into my training programme.

My lead employer has rejected the claim, arguing that the bank work doesn't count towards reckonable service. They've cited Section 12.1 of the NHS Terms and Conditions of Service handbook (which applies to doctors on the 2016 TCS):

12.1 – An employee's continuous previous service with any NHS employer counts as reckonable service in respect of NHS agreements on redundancy, maternity, sick pay and annual leave.

Their argument is that because bank work isn't "continuous" or "full-time" it therefore does not meet the threshold to be counted as reckonable work. I would like to point out that I would have been doing the EXACT SAME WORK if I had accepted a local contract for less pay.

This is despite several colleagues in identical circumstances having had the same request approved without issue (I'd rather not name them in my response). Given the inconsistency, I'm understandably frustrated and plan to contact the BMA for advice.

Has anyone dealt with this before, or have any advice on how to challenge it?

Am I?