[Closed] Idiot's guide to vaccination (Covid)

If you book through NHS site they make you book both dates when you set it up. GP organise two appointments separately.

As I understand it, you are likely to get the same vaccine in both appointments *unless* you sign up to the NHS scheme saying you;re happy to be part of the Covid Vaccine Research Studies (I've signed up for this, had my forst vaccine yesterday, the Moderna)

If you had your first vaccine in February then your second will be due, I would suggest contacting your GP to check

It seems to me (purely through uneducated guesswork) the more they mix and match and go against the manufacturers guidelines and what has been tested the higher the risks.

They're not mixing vaccines. There's a trial aimed at evaluating the results of using two different jabs, but currently if you get AZ first jab, you get AZ second. And so on. You will get the same vaccine that you received initially.

On the booking front, the national and local systems work differently. If you book on the national system, you have to book both appointments in one go. At local level you seem to book the first initially then make a separate booking for the second jab when you're contacted again. Or at least that's how I understand it. HTH

As nbt says, it's two parallel systems. When we checked the NHS site wasn't offering jabs at the local centre that the GP was covering. At our 1st jab we were told that they weren't booking 2nd doses as they were ahead of schedule so didn't see the point in people waiting 12 weeks if they had capacity to call us back in after 8 or 9.

Sorry the process has screwed up for you. I booked on the NHS site and have an appointment for my second jab at the same centre. My wife got hers via the GP (enhanced risk) - not sure whether she has the second appointment booked.

Mixing vaccines - guidance is still that you should get the same one as the first although in exceptional circumstances it's permitted to use a different one. Vaccines for other diseases are often mixed to improve coverage so personally I wouldn't have a problem with mixing. I suspect that annual boosters will mean that we'll all end up with a mix in the end.

There are trials underway for mixes - link

As above, if you got texted for the first, you will be texted again to arrange the 2nd and it will be the same type as the first. I was just told all this as I have recently had my first. 12weeks would get you into May so you aren't overdue I think.

12weeks would get you into May so you aren’t overdue I think.

Good to know... I was wondering if I'd got missed or should "do something" as opposed to wait.

it’s two parallel systems

Thanks for all the confirmation ... this was probably what confused me most.

If you had your first vaccine in February then your second will be due, I would suggest contacting your GP to check

Only problem is I'm currently looking after my mum a long way away plus the text wasn't FROM the GP but on behalf of.

They’re not mixing vaccines. There’s a trial aimed at evaluating the results of using two different jabs, but currently if you get AZ first jab, you get AZ second. And so on. You will get the same vaccine that you received initially.

The impression I got from the first one was that is was randomly selected and they didn't tell you which one until you arrived and allocated a vaccine... (not that I asked TBH) but when I arrived we were told which vaccine we would get that day and I assume everyone else got the same (but obviously as you couldn't talk to anyone else being spaced out I don't really know that was just an assumption).

As I'm looking after my mum I'd like to be as safe as possible in terms of possibly transmitting the virus to her or being ill and not being able to look after her.

The impression I got from the first one was that is was randomly selected and they didn’t tell you which one until you arrived and allocated a vaccine… (not that I asked TBH) but when I arrived we were told which vaccine we would get that day and I assume everyone else got the same (but obviously as you couldn’t talk to anyone else being spaced out I don’t really know that was just an assumption).

The GP surgery will only be dispensing one vaccine type and they will make sure you get the same type for your second jab.

I booked through the NHS site, and my second appointment was made at the same time, 11 weeks after the first. The objective is 'within 12 weeks' so I assumed that was to allow a bit of leeway in case of supply problems, while still allowing as many people as practical to get their first dose.

If you booked through a GP the scheduling is more dynamic so more flexible.

The GP surgery will only be dispensing one vaccine type and they will make sure you get the same type for your second jab.

As far as I could tell the only GP's surgery involvement was their list of "at risk patients".
The text was another number (at least not the one I have in my phone for GP texts) ... the vaccination itself in a big unused office complex with a group of what I think were mainly volunteers. (As I said not much opportunity to talk to people given the situation)

We might be different as my understanding is Woking was chosen to be part of a lateral flow test ???

GP practices banded together in Amersham/Chesham to set up a vaccination hub in the local town hall. The practices selected and texted the patients, the hub did the vaccinations.

GP practices banded together in Amersham/Chesham to set up a vaccination hub in the local town hall. The practices selected and texted the patients, the hub did the vaccinations.

This is the same in our area of West Yorkshire - all the local GP surgery's pulled together and vaccinate as a team outside of the surgery building (at the local health centre, but that is where there is space), which allows the other surgery staff to carry on with day-to-day services. This allows those who aren't able to travel to the big vaccine centres (which you book central) easily (ours is the other side of Leeds) to get their jab locally.

I vaccinate at a GP led clinic. We are the Eastbourne hub fir about 10 local surgeries. Bookings are organised by local admin - you can’t book us by the national website or 119.

Currently we are booking patients in about 11 weeks after 1st jab and at short notice due to vaccine supply issues.

Unless specifically authorised by your GP due to a medical issue post first jab, both jabs will be the same. The trial on mixed jabs might read out in Jun , and chZnge this.

We use both AZ & Pfizer. Normally on separate days, but sometimes both on the same day.

From my seat at the back of the cheap seats the vaccination schedule/guide seems increasingly confusing.

frankly, given the IT infrastructure in the NHS and the number of people who need to approve the simplest decisions in any government-led project (never mind one as high profile as this) I'm staggered we are managing to deliver it as well and coherently as we are. I think part of the reason it is working is because there are multiple channels and routes to access it.

personally id have no concerns about mixing vaccines 12 weeks apart, although the official policy is to use the same vaccine where it is known.

Off for mine at the mass vaccination site in Sheffield this afternoon. Have a suspicion that it’ll be Moderna, but will wait and see. Only hiccup was that I booked it at 7am on Tuesday when over-45’s opened up but only for the email confirmation with booking reference this morning.

poly

frankly, given the IT infrastructure in the NHS and the number of people who need to approve the simplest decisions in any government-led project (never mind one as high profile as this) I’m staggered we are managing to deliver it as well and coherently as we are.

Good point....

personally id have no concerns about mixing vaccines 12 weeks apart, although the official policy is to use the same vaccine where it is known.

Well yes but then I have no real idea why I was on the at risk list to begin with or if the decision to give me the AZ vaccine has anything to do with this reason or my auto immune disorders or was just randomly chosen or what was available.

Just checked and the text was sent by some group calling themselves "NW Surrey improved access hubs" with no reason why I was "invited" (at the time I initially thought it was another scam, specifically because it said not to contact the surgery).. "Dear XTC you are invited to book your COVID-19 vaccinations .." and continues ... "Please DO NOT contact your surgery."

However I checked out the accuRx on digital.nhs.uk and it appeared legit. (Much as I dislike technology I have worked in it for decades so I wonder how a non tech savvy pensioner would check that out?) and based on google I'm not the only one asking if its legit..

So I guess I'm in a track so to speak and just wait for the outsourced company to contact me which as pointed out will be in May sometime.

I had my first AZ/OX jab in Tuesday at a walk-in (no appointment) centre at St Thomas’s hospital, one place for registration and 3 different posh tents for jabbing. Got a text at registration giving me the second date.
However I logged on to NHS site and was told I needed to rebook second date as this could not be fulfilled, no issue as it’s now a day earlier at a pharmacy down the road.
Thing is I logged in out of curiosity and received no text or email re the second jab not being available.
Might be because they are swapping to moderna at that site or because it was just a weeks push to get any 1-9 stragglers done at a facility that could process walk ins? Either way I would check your second appointment is still valid.
(My surgery is a vaccine hub but they were too slow in offering me a jab, not a peep from them right up to the over 50s deadline)

However I logged on to NHS site and was told I needed to rebook second date as this could not be fulfilled, no issue as it’s now a day earlier at a pharmacy down the road.
Thing is I logged in out of curiosity and received no text or email re the second jab not being available.

Thanks, I reclicked the link and it seems I just wait.

tuboflard
Full Member
Off for mine at the mass vaccination site in Sheffield this afternoon.

Was that through the NHS website?
When I booked back in March the nearest available site to Sheffield, was Mansfield, so I went there.
Which means my 2nd jab will also be there.

P.S. Good Luck!

I had my first one yesterday after over 45s were allowed to book on Tuesday. Got it done at the football ground as it's near work and is doing hundreds a day although I could have had it done a a pharmacy nearer home if I'd waited a couple of weeks.

My in laws (in their 70s) had their first jab a good few weeks ago at their GP and then got phoned earlier this week to say second jab on Thursday.

It seems a lot of GPs are ringing to sort appointments only a few days in advance. If you book centrally they like you to book both.

Astra Zeneca jab was the one on the menu yesterday.

A colleague at work who was done a month ago has been asked whether he will take part in the mixed 2nd jabs trial. He's yet to confirm but it seems there is some coherent strategy to find out whether this could be a good thing or not.

A colleague at work who was done a month ago has been asked whether he will take part in the mixed 2nd jabs trial. He’s yet to confirm but ,

As above.. your colleague may want to wonder/consider why they were selected in the first place, why they got a specific vaccine or not etc.

it seems there is some coherent strategy to find out whether this could be a good thing or not.

I'm with Poly, it seems that the lack of coherent strategy is quite possibly why its going so well.
and "good thing" depends for whom. Not to put too fine a point on it a multi car pile up on the motorway is good news if you own a auto salvage business, less so if you die in one.

To extend that analogy, I'd be wary of some organisation that stands to make money claiming for example that removing the hard shoulder is safer than having one.

I think some folk are over thinking it.

The only people being offered a different second vaccine at the moment are volunteers for the trial who will be monitored, or a very, very few who have had it suggested for a medical reason.

Was that through the NHS website?
When I booked back in March the nearest available site to Sheffield, was Mansfield, so I went there.
Which means my 2nd jab will also be there.

P.S. Good Luck!

Yep @JohnnyPanic, via the NHS website. Been keeping an eye on it and when I heard the news on the radio first thing Tuesday I was straight on it. Lots of options and appointments even the following morning. Arena is the easiest for me though other half, booking by the same route, got Hathersage for some bizarre reason.

I think some folk are over thinking it.

The only people being offered a different second vaccine at the moment are volunteers for the trial who will be monitored,

I thought most who have already had vaccines were selected for some specific reason to start off with.

I'd feel more confident if that reason had been shared with me and the language was more straight.
I was "invited" for no explained reason to book an unknown vaccine. No reason given why I was selected or why the AZ vaccine.
As it happens I had no side effects at all...

Does that mean I "volunteered" because I was "invited" to take an undisclosed vaccine for no given reason and turned up?

How do I know I haven't been "invited" because they want to use me to test a vaccine that is thought to be higher risk for my specific medical history.
I haven't got my 2nd invitation yet but if it doesn't specifically say it's for AZ how would I know what I'm saying yes to ?

I think I've misunderstood the question here.

No one chooses which vaccine they get first time round. We don't have "unknown" vaccines. You got one of the two available at the time, and you were told which it is at the time.

All the vaccines were tested and passed as safe to use - it's taken millions of doses for the relatively small risk of complications from the AZ vaccine to be identified.

You will get the same vaccine for your second dose, unless you are on the trial where they are mixed, or there's a definite medical reason to give you a different one.

How do I know I haven’t been “invited” because they want to use me to test a vaccine that is thought to be higher risk for my specific medical history.
I haven’t got my 2nd invitation yet but if it doesn’t specifically say it’s for AZ how would I know what I’m saying yes to ?

You are straying into paranoia/conspiracy at that point.

How do I know I haven’t been “invited” because they want to use me to test a vaccine that is thought to be higher risk for my specific medical history.

Higher risk groups have been done already, if you're only getting an invite now, there's nothing in your med history that we'd be interested in. (from a vaccine perspective)

Interesting to get feedback from the other side of the operation.

MoreCash

You are straying into paranoia/conspiracy at that point.

When they start off with a SMS from an unknown organisation (claims to be from NW Surrey Improved Access Hubs at the bottom but with no number but using a alternate "GpSurgery" instead of a number its bound to ring some alarm bells.

You can't call or request who they are and google predictive search comes up with "are accurx legitimate" when you try accurx where you are redirected you just get a URL to click.

Not so different to an another text I got about paying £2.50 or something to a fake Royal Mail address or the one about a payment I set up from a bank I don't bank with...

Even my octogenarian mother knows to not answer these types of text.

Then they go on saying I'm "invited" and "do not contact your surgery" (even though it pretends to be from the surgery) - I'm pretty sure my surgery do not have the skills to spoof numberless texts, that is what scammers do.

You got one of the two available at the time, and you were told which it is at the time.

So why was I not told which vaccine before I turned up?
Why was I told "do not contact your surgery"?

Would it have been too difficult to tell me in advance and send an e-copy of the booklet I was given when I turned up so I could take the time to read it first instead of being pressured once I turned up?

Why was I selected ? Why is this such a secret they can't tell me?

Higher risk groups have been done already, if you’re only getting an invite now, there’s nothing in your med history that we’d be interested in. (from a vaccine perspective)

So again I'm wondering why I was "invited" by some shady 3rd party to get a vaccine in February?
Is this random or based on medical history?

For reference:
https://www.google.com/search?q=is+accurx+legitimate&oq=is+accurx+leg&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0i22i30j69i64.7781j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

It hardly seems like I'm the only person who searched google for this shady organisation...

Interesting to get feedback from the other side of the operation.

As above... if I'm not at risk why was I "invited"... why wasn't a reason given? Why am I sent a text with no related number pretending to be from someone else?

The staff at the disused office building were brill but they had no information to answer these questions either.

Oh, apologies I thought you'd only just been invited, if you got invited in February, you're probably in one of the priority groups.

Why am I sent a text with no related number pretending to be from someone else?

Because the vaccine program is being co-ordinated (outside London) through AccuRX as it's a pretty good booking system that both pharmacists and GP can both use that talks to both our systems, and it's not "pretending" to have come from your GP, it has come from your GP. Try not to overthink it, it's a just vaccine.

It hardly seems like I’m the only person who searched google for this shady organisation…

AccuRX is used by nearly every pharmacy in the country, just because you've never heard of it, doesn't automatically make it shady, stop being so melodramatic.

and it’s not “pretending” to have come from your GP, it has come from your GP.

So why is the number withheld ? I get texts from the surgery number quite often and it has a real number. Why wouldn't the surgery use this?

This text had every indication of being a scam. Imagine you were advising an elderly IT illiterate relative on what to do with unsolicited text messages from unknown sources.

AccuRX is used by nearly every pharmacy in the country, just because you’ve never heard of it, doesn’t automatically make it shady, stop being so melodramatic.

I don't think I'm the only person never heard of it or to think it was a scam?
Perhaps a text from the surgery number would have been more comforting or some sort of explanation like the one you gave.

https://conversation.which.co.uk/scams/scam-nhs-covid-vaccine-text-message/?fbclid=IwAR0Jq0R0pW5RsgQNYtfGTsWKSkFoFi8sHNgsEg7uEuvS6a9JRRudhsIRWF0

Their page does nothing to alleviate my concern. It is exactly what I'd expect a scammer to do. If this is legitimate then it would surely be on a domain that resolves to nhs.uk.

https://support.accurx.com/en/articles/4794856-i-have-been-invited-to-book-my-covid-19-vaccination-through-accurx-thirdparty-nhs-uk-is-this-legitimate

Try not to overthink it, it’s a just vaccine.

So why am I not allowed to know why I was invited?
If they are going to give out a leaflet when you arrive why not send it in advance.

It's not one vaccine it was two so I want to know why I was selected for this specific vaccine or this specific vaccine was selected for me or if anyone has even considered it?

When I saw the pre-injection nice bloke he asked if I had any allergies. Surely the GP would/should have put that in notes? When I asked if he meant IgE mediated allergies specifically he didn't know what immuno-globulins were. (That's not criticising him, surely the information should be provided.). and given the only IgE allergy I have is some exotic antibiotic I don't know the name of but is in my medical records that would be useful.

I also wondered if my reason for being "invited" was due to my IgA/IgG mediated "allergies" but he had no information on that or knew what immunoglobulins were or the inverse and that I might be more at risk of an adverse reaction because of my auto immune disorders.

All of this is in my medical records, it hardly seems efficient to have someone like me with learning difficulties trying to explain to some medical professional.

In contrast, when my GP prescribes something it can usually be explained to me why and how a certain prescription may be better for me given the habit of my immune system for going totally ballistic.

I still have no idea at all why I was "invited" or why/if the AZ vaccine was selected for a reason or randomly or if the person doing it had any access to my medical records ???

Went to Sheffield arena. Arrived early but told to park up and head straight in. Everyone from the car park attendant to the nurse were really chirpy and happy to see you. No queue, straight in to the booth. Jab, paperwork and sit for the 15 minutes. Absolutely seamless and so well planned. Nurse even apologised as had to leave the booth for all of 30 seconds to get the next vial of Moderna vaccine.

I bloody love our NHS.

So why is the number withheld ?

Because it uses AccuRX, and that withholds numbers, I think it was a national decision, to stop folk automatically phoning their GP as soon as they got a text. so as not to overwhelm GP surgeries.

This text had every indication of being a scam

Sure, you're not the first person to say this. I don't think there was a better system that could be used by everyone in the short timescale  we had to get the program up and running. With hindsight, it could've been better, but we were up against it at the time.

So why am I not allowed to know why I was invited?

No one has suggested that you're not allowed to know, but it's been in the news since the beginning that the plan was to vaccinate every adult, it couldn't have come as a massive surprise to you, as y'know, you're an adult. Have you asked your GP? or check out the The first phase groups and see which one applies to you.

so I want to know why I was selected for this specific vaccine

You probably got what they had. We weren't giving out "specific" vaccines in February, we were giving out what we were supplied.

Surely the GP would/should have put that in notes?

We're vaccinated millions of people, we don't have time to give everyone's medical notes to the vaccine teams, sorry.

I still have no idea at all why I was “invited” or why/if the AZ vaccine was selected for a reason or randomly or if the person doing it had any access to my medical records ???

You've been invited because every adult is being invited, the AZ was selected as that we have the most of, and no the person giving it to you didn't and doesn't need access to your medical records because: it's just a vaccine.

👏👏

the person giving it to you didn’t and doesn’t need access to your medical records

I find that very very worrying if its true.
"The MHRA has given precautionary advice to NHS trusts that anyone who has a history of "significant" allergic reactions to medicines, food or vaccines should not receive the vaccine."

because: it’s just a vaccine

Right in the same way its just a peanut butter and prawn sandwich ...

No one has suggested that you’re not allowed to know, but it’s been in the news since the beginning that the plan was to vaccinate every adult

Have you asked your GP?

The instruction explicitly said not to contact the surgery but regardless I wouldn't have had time anyway.

or check out the The first phase groups and see which one applies to you.

Several of those apply to me ... however the concern here is several of those also contra-indicate one vaccine or another and from what you say there is no cross checking.

Because it uses AccuRX, and that withholds numbers, I think it was a national decision, to stop folk automatically phoning their GP as soon as they got a text. so as not to overwhelm GP surgeries.

Having worked in software and technology companies for decades I can confidently say the pressure for this was to use the vaccines as a way to force other services on GP's. Just like the pressure to close hard shoulders on motorways was made to facilitate "smart motorways" and create a market that wouldn't exist if they built safer motorways.
The basis of every cloud project I was involved in for the last 5+ years has been to prevent clients backing out when it goes wrong or fails to deliver the promised advantages.

In the case of our GP they and the other GP's in our CCG are in an ongoing locked heads battle with the CCG who are trying to close them down to take direct control. the CCG will support anything that takes control away from surgery's including using fake public consultations.
[>24 hours notice to attend in person in working hours to state your views as a patient on the plan to close the walk in minor injuries and clinic if you happened to be trawling their website the day before* for the only public announcement]

*Not me one of our ward councillors made my council ward aware. Unsurprisingly though very few people could attend in person the next day so the "conclusion" was no-one cared

Sure, look, if you want to make everything in your life as massively complex, stressful and conspiratorial  as your endless rambling and often incoherent posts seem to indicate you want or need to, knock yourself out. I doubt anything I say will change the way you seem to view life.

If you've got real concerns about the vaccine, talk to your GP (I know you're advised not to, but that's a catch all in order to make folk think twice about doing it) your GP won't mind.

I find that very very worrying if its true.

The Lead (normally a GP with re-suss team lead or A&E experience)  at the vaccine centre will be able to see your brief history should they need to have a look more deeply, when the vaccinator asks you if there are any things in your history to suggest there might be an issue, that's the time to sing out. If you don't know, then just say so.

In the case of our GP they and the other GP’s in our CCG are in an ongoing locked heads battle with the CCG who are trying to close them down to take direct control.

Given that CCGs are ceasing to exist in a year or so, seems like GPs have won that battle at least.

The Pfizer vaccine is the one with the greater allergy risks, hence the enforced 15 minute wait on the premises post jab to assess for anaphylaxis.

Early advice from the MHRA was for people with allergies not to have the vaccine. That has now softened considerably now more is known.

At the point of vaccination when your consent is taken, we assess any allergic issues then, in consultation with the clinical lead (experienced doctor) if required.

The Lead (normally a GP with re-suss team lead or A&E experience) at the vaccine centre will be able to see your brief history should they need to have a look more deeply, when the vaccinator asks you if there are any things in your history to suggest there might be an issue, that’s the time to sing out. If you don’t know, then just say so.

See to me it makes more sense to check medical history before exposing at risk people to the virus and to give them the time to understand what they are getting and signing. (such as the chance to talk to their GP)
I assume everyone else receiving a vaccine in the unused office complex in Feb would for one reason or another be considered at risk or they wouldn't be there.

However, if I was charging per SMS sent it would make sense to send as many SMS's as possible and sort it out at the other end and use a non number so I can charge for something that has no cost.

If you’ve got real concerns about the vaccine, talk to your GP (I know you’re advised not to, but that’s a catch all in order to make folk think twice about doing it) your GP won’t mind.

My concerns are about how it is being done and the way information is supplied and the misuse of tax money to force the operational end.

Sure, look, if you want to make everything in your life as massively complex, stressful and conspiratorial as your endless rambling and often incoherent posts seem to indicate you want or need to, knock yourself out. I doubt anything I say will change the way you seem to view life.

Myself (any many of my ex-colleagues) took VR to escape having to constantly lie and mislead clients at the sharp (operational) end when some sales bod had made a sale to the non-operational executive management.

i think you need to complain to your M.P. or perhaps write to your local paper.

Dantsw13

The Pfizer vaccine is the one with the greater allergy risks, hence the enforced 15 minute wait on the premises post jab to assess for anaphylaxis.

Early advice from the MHRA was for people with allergies not to have the vaccine. That has now softened considerably now more is known.

At the point of vaccination when your consent is taken, we assess any allergic issues then, in consultation with the clinical lead (experienced doctor) if required.

This is sort of what I was asking (and why we aren't told if the vaccine has or has not been selected due to our medical history).

The whole thing to me felt like being railroaded ... many of us hadn't been outside the house in months (personally I'd been to hospital but little else for months ) and then we are invited to a disused office block with hundreds of other people where you are told what vaccine, given a leaflet and told to either sign or leave.

The backdrop (to this SMS out of the blue) being months of misleading and contradictory information ... from masks increase transmission to the exact opposite. (for example) and advice out of step with experts from the rest of the world/WHO etc.

In my previous job I had access to academic papers through my work account .. hence my cheap seats comment.
Thrown back into the "cheap seats" I no longer have access to primary sources and I'm discovering how much primary data is withheld from the "uneducated".

See to me it makes more sense to check medical history before

Who do you propose you get to do that work? Given that clinical staff are still seeing all their regular patients, and volunteering to vaccinate people when they're not working their normal jobs?

The whole thing to me felt like being railroaded

The vast majority of folks I've dealt with our local vaccination centre have just been pleased that they're getting the vaccine. If you were worried at all, then don't have the vaccine, and just turn down the invite. Folks who chose not to have it at the time, have called us subsequently and we're just sending them out another invite. As accuRX chain texts have been free to GP surgeries to use since 2018 (and continue to be free) it's no biggie.

This is sort of what I was asking

This is why I said..when the vaccinator asks you if there are any things in your history to suggest there might be an issue, that’s the time to sing out. If you don’t know, then just say so.

Who do you propose you get to do that work? Given that clinical staff are still seeing all their regular patients, and volunteering to vaccinate people when they’re not working their normal jobs?

This is what I'm trying to understand. You seem to say this text is from the GP's surgery but then you seem to say its not.

What I want to know is who went through my medical records to select me and why?
Did my GP look through my history or not before sending this text or was this text sent by someone totally unqualified without access to my medical records?

As accuRX chain texts have been free to GP surgeries to use since 2018 (and continue to be free) it’s no biggie.

So what are these charges for ?

For accuRx Plus orders covering a population of less than 100,000 patient population, SMS costs are 1.75p per fragment if paid via direct debit or 1.95p per fragment without direct debit. For orders covering a population of more than 100,000 patient population, SMS costs are 1.75p per fragment. SMS costs exclude VAT.

accuRx plus is a premium tier of accuRx Desktop, which contains some new and exciting products, as well as some pre-existing functionality that became chargeable on the 1st April 2021. accuRx Plus relies on local funding and you can read our blog here which explains why we've launched this.

What is accuRx Lite?

There will always be a free version of accuRx - called accuRx Lite. You can see exactly what functionality is included in accuRx Lite in the feature table below.

What is accuRx Plus?

In January 2021, we launched accuRx Plus, which is a set of new premium features.

We are introducing accuRx Plus to help us transition to a sustainable business model and to ensure that we can keep solving even bigger challenges in healthcare communications. You can read more about why and how we are doing this in our blog post.

Going back to

Because it uses AccuRX, and that withholds numbers, I think it was a national decision, to stop folk automatically phoning their GP as soon as they got a text. so as not to overwhelm GP surgeries.

What were the medical qualifications of the person who made this decision?
Was it by any chance made by a failed jockey who gave millions of peoples personal details away described by the Information Commissioner (Elizabeth Denham) as "a failure to implement the most basic cyber security measures."
Or the same person that sparked the headline "TalkTalk boss Dido Harding's utter ignorance is a lesson to us all"

[I realise you have been told one thing... but perhaps you can see why I'd be skeptical if Dildo Hardon is involved in these decisions.

In my previous job I had access to academic papers through my work account .. hence my cheap seats comment.
Thrown back into the “cheap seats” I no longer have access to primary sources and I’m discovering how much primary data is withheld from the “uneducated”.

It's not withheld, scientific publication is in the main a subscription service. You will have had access because your work paid for it, just as mine does for me. Publishing's a business, and in scientific publishing there's not the same demand for advertising to bolster the income as there might be in mass circulation Depending on the field it might be on ArXiv as well though.

Withheld is a whole different matter - information on these vaccines is far from being withheld.

As for railroaded. Sorry, again no. That would imply rounded up and forced. You could have declined the invite, declined the vaxx when you got there....

https://www.accurx.com/security-and-privacy/for-patients

but of course if it's a deep state scam, that FAQ page will be part of it.

Makes you think.....

Some of what you are saying comes across as paranoid.

You seem to say this text is from the GP’s surgery but then you seem to say its not.

I haven't said that at all.

What I want to know is who went through my medical records to select me and why?

The priority groups were chosen through searches that are embedded in every GP system. The COVID priority searches are mostly age based apart from group 6 which were predominately (but not entirely) the same group that we invite for a flu jab each year, and suffer from similar diseases (asthma, and other respiratory diseases)  In most practices those searches were done by admin staff. The same staff that run these sorts of searches all the time, and a better at doing this work than the doctors are.

Did my GP look through my history or not before sending this text.

So any consultation with your GP that ended with him deciding you have a disease will produce a code that's in your history. The COVID searches looked for those codes. In so much as those codes are only placed on your records by GPs, they have (in effect)  been selected by them

it produces a list of names and tel numbers that's used to send invites  (through AccuRX) to patients. Any patients that don't have a mobile are funnelled to a second list that GP staff called directly on land lines. What hasn't happened is any additional work to look  through those lists of 100's of patients for any possible adverse reactions, as we just don't have the staff or time to do that, and normally patients are switched-on enough to tell the consenter (at the vaccine centre) if they have any issues that they think we need to made aware about.

So what are these charges for ?

That's AccuRX Plus, it has some other stuff built it and you pay for it. Boggo AccuRX-Lite is a free add on, and that's all that's most GP surgeries need as we have access to other patient texting systems (that are also free as it happens) the only reason accuRX was used (as I've already said) was because both Pharmacies and GP could use it.

What were the medical qualifications of the person who made this decision?

No idea.

Was it by any chance made by a failed jockey

No, Ms Harding isn't involved in the vaccine programme, she does Track and Trace, and that's completely different.

Alternatively: If you're the Steve I think you are, we were told to invite you for a specific vaccine at a specific date to see if you'd grow an extra head. Gove and Harding have told us that if everything goes right, the Big Money Corp will give us all a million dollars each...

But, y'know, keep it under your hat or hats  (if you're not that Steve)

Some of what you are saying comes across as paranoid.

I stepped away from this yesterday as I felt I was being too harsh, but yes, I'm genuinely concerned at the thought processes behind the OPs comments.

TBH I was thinking it comes across as extreme anxiety. I've shied away from commenting but perhaps the OP might recognise this when prompted?

was thinking it comes across as extreme anxiety

Probably a better term, that extreme overthinking that anxiety can bring on

Yes, didn't mean to be unkind but also I mean that honing in on the one piece of 'evidence' that might cause worry instead of the dozens that reassure does make me think there might be an underlying issue such as anxiety to address, but anxiety and paranoia are two close clonditions.

I know, I have had paranoia in work before.....

The symptoms of paranoia can include:

• Being defensive, hostile, and aggressive

• Being easily offended

• Believing you are always right and having trouble relaxing or letting your guard down

• Not being able to compromise, forgive, or accept criticism

• Not being able to trust or confide in other people

• Reading hidden meanings into people’s normal behaviors

https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/why-paranoid#:~:text=Paranoia%20is%20the%20feeling%20that,if%20they%20happen%20too%20often.

@stevextc

The checking happens at the end of the process to keep the thousadns of doses rolling fairly efficiently; for every person who even declares an allergy, there'll be loads who don't and can go pretty much straight through (though some other checks are done too). Most folk who report a history of allergy can also go straight through after a quick review of their history.

Regarding "allergies", yours sounds like a more complex case than most and nobody's going to ignore a history like that once you mention it. Do you know what substances kick you off and what they do to you ? (I'm assuming that your "fancy antibiotic" didn't result in a life-threatening reaction, but only because patients usually know the exact name of a product that did that to them)

Although all vaccines (and pretty much all medicines) can produce allergic reactions of various types, the RNA vaccines like Pfizer's have very few ingredients (and no "virus shell") to react to and so, for example, you can generally ignore most antibiotic allergies as there aren't any in there.

HOWEVER - people who've had severe reactions, particularly to injectable drugs including other vaccines are sometimes reacting to other components of the product ("excipients") rather than the active drug itself.
We look carefully (at my place) at patients with significant hypersensitivity histories to try to work out if they might react to one of those components. Luckily the prime suspect in the Pfizer and AZ vaccines is a different substance so often we can decide that one product is a better bet for "you" than the other, even if you are one of those cases

The vaccine excipients are listed in their SPCs: (googling "covid pfizer SPC" gets you the first one)

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-for-covid-19/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-pfizerbiontech-covid-19-vaccine

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-moderna/information-for-healthcare-professionals-on-covid-19-vaccine-moderna

If I wait and get given a different vaccine is that likely to be good/bad? Will the second vaccine (if it ever happens) be randomly selected or will it take into account the first vaccine?

This is Britain under the Tories, we're probably getting sugar water.

I expect to see vinegar and brown paper available in prescription form shortly.

Just reading through this thread and it’s like reading a bunch of Flipboard articles regarding anti-vaxx and QAnon conspiracy covidiots in the States! I had my first jab back in February, because I’m 67, and part of one of the vulnerable groups because of my age. As it happens, it was earlier than I expected just because my local health authority seemed to be particularly well organised, I had a text from my surgery giving me a date, with three choices of time to turn up. I turned up about thirty minutes early, and was sat down being given my vaccination at exactly the time I was booked in for.
This is how it should work, and it did. My second vaccination is twelve weeks after the first, I see no reason why that should change; however, I have received a communication from my surgery asking me if I’m prepared to take part in a research project centred around having a different vaccine for the second jab, as I’ve only had the first, and I’m seriously considering it. I know the texts are coming from my doctors surgery, because they say so, just like the ones about having my annual flu vaccination.
Honestly, why do some people have to make a simple process so sodding complicated?
To start with, there were two vaccines available in the U.K., you got given what was available to a particular health authority.
I rather wish mine had been the other vaccine, because of what happened to my g/f, the significance being everyone would have had the BioNTech instead of the Ox/AZ, but leaving that aside, if I decide not to go ahead with this trial, I’ll be getting the second shot of the Ox/AZ vaccine next month, y’know, twelve weeks after the first, just like the media has been saying from the beginning, after it was decided to extend the gap due to supply constraints, a decision that has subsequently been proved to be exactly the right one, as the effectiveness appears to improve significantly given a bigger gap between vaccinations.

The priority groups were chosen through searches that are embedded in every GP system. The COVID priority searches are mostly age based apart from group 6 which were predominately (but not entirely) the same group that we invite for a flu jab each year, and suffer from similar diseases (asthma, and other respiratory diseases) In most practices those searches were done by admin staff. The same staff that run these sorts of searches all the time, and a better at doing this work than the doctors are.

So any consultation with your GP that ended with him deciding you have a disease will produce a code that’s in your history. The COVID searches looked for those codes. In so much as those codes are only placed on your records by GPs, they have (in effect) been selected by them

it produces a list of names and tel numbers that’s used to send invites (through AccuRX) to patients. Any patients that don’t have a mobile are funnelled to a second list that GP staff called directly on land lines. What hasn’t happened is any additional work to look through those lists of 100’s of patients for any possible adverse reactions, as we just don’t have the staff or time to do that, and normally patients are switched-on enough to tell the consenter (at the vaccine centre) if they have any issues that they think we need to made aware about.

This is what I wanted to know and this also matches exactly what I thought was happening... why wasn't I told this.
Since I get the flu notifications I assumed (and if what you say is correct) this is why I got the Covid and it was done from a list.

I'm personally concerned about this because my GP often consults my rheumatologist as I have had adverse reactions to many pharmacutical excipients.

The anti-biotic, I have no idea. I was in no condition to take notes when it was changed. I was just told afterwards it had been changed because I'd had an unexpected reaction to it. I don't even know if it was a IgE reaction, just I was told I'd reacted badly. [I wasn't fully conscious at the time and I have no reliable memories of 2-3 days around that time]

HOWEVER – people who’ve had severe reactions, particularly to injectable drugs including other vaccines are sometimes reacting to other components of the product (“excipients”) rather than the active drug itself.
We look carefully (at my place) at patients with significant hypersensitivity histories to try to work out if they might react to one of those components. Luckily the prime suspect in the Pfizer and AZ vaccines is a different substance so often we can decide that one product is a better bet for “you” than the other, even if you are one of those cases

Again, this was what I wanted to know...
I wasn't selected based on age (I'm only 52) so it must be another reason.
All I wanted to know is WHY, and who had been consulted on the specific vaccine I was being offered.

I fully expected I would be told when I arrived but instead I was given a booklet and told "we don't know, do you want the vaccine you are being offered or not" and a load of questions that I felt should have been answered with someone qualified (not me) or from my medical records before I arrived and was put at risk in a disused office block with hundreds of people.

HOWEVER – people who’ve had severe reactions, particularly to injectable drugs including other vaccines are sometimes reacting to other components of the product (“excipients”) rather than the active drug itself.
We look carefully (at my place) at patients with significant hypersensitivity histories to try to work out if they might react to one of those components. Luckily the prime suspect in the Pfizer and AZ vaccines is a different substance so often we can decide that one product is a better bet for “you” than the other, even if you are one of those cases

The vaccine excipients are listed in their SPCs: (googling “covid pfizer SPC” gets you the first one)

All of this would have been useful information BEFORE I arrived.
It's of very limited use once you arrive and are put into a production line or to someone without a smartphone/signal. [given I was an exception by age most people being vaccinated would be older and might need to be able to ask someone more tech/medical savvy - or someone not suffering from Alzheimers etc]

CountZero

I know the texts are coming from my doctors surgery, because they say so, just like the ones about having my annual flu vaccination.

Based on the above that seems to fit my experience exactly your text didn't come from the GPsurgery but from a list, an algorithm and a bunch of operators.

As it happens I have a bunch of texts saying they are from:
HMRC
DVLA
Royal Mail
Several banks I don't bank with

(and lots of others) perhaps you'd like me to forwards them and you can give them your personal and banking details.

This is how it should work

Sorry, but what are your qualifications to say that?

Jonv

Yes, didn’t mean to be unkind but also I mean that honing in on the one piece of ‘evidence’ that might cause worry instead of the dozens that reassure does make me think there might be an underlying issue such as anxiety to address, but anxiety and paranoia are two close clonditions.

I know you mean that well... but its a matter of perspective.
My banks security team worded it differently for example when I escaped a very convincing and well executed scam that I was told by the security officer they may well have fallen for themselves.

dyna-ti

This is Britain under the Tories, we’re probably getting sugar water.

Well there certainly seems to be an unprecedented amount of nepitism under this specific government as well as straight out lying.
COVID has, on the whole simply been a way to give contracts and positions to mates and family to this government whilst bypassing oversight.

That’s AccuRX Plus, it has some other stuff built it and you pay for it. Boggo AccuRX-Lite is a free add on, and that’s all that’s most GP surgeries need as we have access to other patient texting systems (that are also free as it happens) the only reason accuRX was used (as I’ve already said) was because both Pharmacies and GP could use it.

Assuming you work for them ... as I said who made the decision ?

If you didn't work for them wouldn't you think the timing is exploiting covid to gain a wider footprint?

There are hundreds of free texting solutions .. spammers and scammers use them all the time, its just that they are not on the NHS procurement list. Given the current government's pre-disposition for appointing unqualified but connected people and promoting companies with the correct connections I find it suspicious that Surgery's and Pharmacies have been forced into a single solution.

No, Ms Harding isn’t involved in the vaccine programme, she does Track and Trace, and that’s completely different.

Harding was also appointed interim chief executive of the new National Institute for Health Protection, later renamed the UK Health Security Agency.

You may see track and trace as "completely different". I don't. I see the two as a case of nepetism to appoint totally unqualified people to prepare the NHS for sale and bring in 3rd parties whilst getting the patients used to 3rd parties.

I regard a list provided by a gp's surgery and a text sent by a gp's surgery as different.

CountZero illustrates this exactly. They think it is actually SENT by the GP because it says so.

My banks security team worded it differently for example when I escaped a very convincing and well executed scam that I was told by the security officer they may well have fallen for themselves.

I understand what you are saying, and I agree that we should have transparency and clarity of communication wherever we can. I'm also suspicious of the Gov on many things they've done, but on this a slightly badly worded communication looks to me like Hanlon's Razor.

I say that because as I said before, when you dig deeper the answers are there, not hidden, and all make sense. Unlike digging into eg: the PPE procurement where the further you go the less it makes sense.

This Gov is crap, but they do still get some things right.

CountZero illustrates this exactly. They think it is actually SENT by the GP because it says so.

You really need to back off from criticising CZs incredibly calm and thorough comments.

Jonv

It’s not withheld, scientific publication is in the main a subscription service. You will have had access because your work paid for it, just as mine does for me. Publishing’s a business, and in scientific publishing there’s not the same demand for advertising to bolster the income as there might be in mass circulation

It's the same thing if you don't have access.

Just reading through this thread and it’s like reading a bunch of Flipboard articles regarding anti-vaxx and QAnon conspiracy covidiots in the States!

The issue is the scientific publishing business is not fit for purpose in 2021.
There are in effect 3 very different sources of information.

1) Peer reviewed scientific journals
2) Edited, over simplified and usually plain false official coverage of these
3) t'internet

The issue with 2 is these over simplified sources are usually observably false and self contradictory or simply misleading.
Covid examples: The official narrative, it's no worse than the flu... masks increase infection risk... it can't be spread through the air underlain by "we are following scientific advice".

Then there is the deliberatly misleading .. e.g. "children are not at risk from Covid" ....
The above statement is true but being deliberately misused. No-one serious ever suggested kids had a high risk of personally dying... simply that they would transmit the disease to people who are.

The same goes for the vaccination program, people were given official messages it was about THEIR risk. Again false messaging that leads to people not getting vaccinated as they don't feel to be particularly at risk.

Then there is the deliberate not listening to experts / telling them what they can or can't say.
typified by
Q "is there any evidence children are at high risk of dying"
A "no but... they can pass on the virus"

I didn't ask you that, its a yes or no answer unless you want to be replaced.

Unfortunately after they publish this to "joe/jill public" they then have to contradict themselves later.

Out of 100 sources on t'internet they will doubtless find more than expose the lies than not, even if the rest of the stuff they read in the same sources is total la la fantasy involving reptile aliens.

The issue here is the official narrative flipped. (e.g. masks increase risk of transfer to we must all wear masks when outside the house) .. whereas the lizard people alien site will have said one or the other from the off.

The anti-biotic, I have no idea. I was in no condition to take notes when it was changed. I was just told afterwards it had been changed because I’d had an unexpected reaction to it. I don’t even know if it was a IgE reaction, just I was told I’d reacted badly

I'd suggest that it's very much in your interests to know this and make sure it's as thoroughly documented as possible (what drug, what route, what happened and when in relation to the dose). Patients with vague histories of a mystery antibiotic (that may or may not be in sufficient detail on their electronic GP record (if they've agreed to have one)) that made them "really ill" get, to varying degrees, treated sub-optimally - there's published evidence that a documented allergy can have less good outcomes to hospital admissions (it limits the range of drugs we can use and end up using less effective or more toxic alternatives to avoid the (often penicillin-derivative)). That's fine when it's a genuinely severe allergy to a known drug but much harder when it's a vague reaction to an unnamed drug - what do we avoid in that case ?

You clearly have an interesting history so own it, learn it and if necessary, write it down yourself

Covid examples: The official narrative, it’s no worse than the flu… masks increase infection risk… it can’t be spread through the air

I don't remember that official narrative - when was that (and was it the UK?)

Q “is there any evidence children are at high risk of dying”
A “no but… they can pass on the virus”
I didn’t ask you that, its a yes or no answer

It's cleary NOT a yes or no answer unless what you want is

Edited, over simplified and usually plain false official coverage

You really need to back off from criticising CZs incredibly calm and thorough comments.

I'm not criticising, I'm pointing out a text SAYING it's from HMRC isn't.
(I'm sure you know that)

My default (call it paranoia if it makes you feel better) is not to trust anything until I can verify the source.

Based on what others wrote above (which makes perfect sense to me) if he is on the flu jab list then the text DID NOT come from the GP.

In my case I think this is also the case.

Hence why as my GP usually checks with my rheumatologist who makes a "best guess" based on "patients similar to me" I was concerned when the people at the vaccination centre said they didn't know why I was selected, this vaccine appropriate or have access to my medical history.

I’d suggest that it’s very much in your interests to know this and make sure it’s as thoroughly documented as possible (what drug, what route, what happened and when in relation to the dose). Patients with vague histories of a mystery antibiotic (that may or may not be in sufficient detail on their electronic GP record (if they’ve agreed to have one)) that made them “really ill” get, to varying degrees, treated sub-optimally – there’s published evidence that a documented allergy can have less good outcomes to hospital admissions (it limits the range of drugs we can use and end up using less effective or more toxic alternatives to avoid the (often penicillin-derivative)). That’s fine when it’s a genuinely severe allergy to a known drug but much harder when it’s a vague reaction to an unnamed drug – what do we avoid in that case ?

Yeah, I know that and I just keep forgetting. (Usually because I only see a GP when I'm really ill or potentially really ill and you only have 10 minutes)
Last GP visit was because I was bleeding from my bum... GP did as she should and booked the specialist .. for reasons you probably understand I forgot to ask "oh what's that antibiotic"... because the GP was more concerned about bleeding from my bum and I assumed this is on my medical records.

I don’t remember that official narrative – when was that (and was it the UK?)

Boris Johnson, March last year... whilst he was busy "shaking hands with Covid patients"
Matt Hancock .. the pair of them saying 2m whilst stending less than 2m apart.

It’s cleary NOT a yes or no answer unless what you want is

Well, yes.. Ask Ruth May.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jul/20/englands-chief-nurse-dropped-from-covid-19-briefing-after-refusing-to-back-cummings-ruth-may

This is exactly the sort of questions I got asked daily...
Sales Manager: Can we customise OUR software to look like it does something useful for the client.

When the answer is "YES but"... because it will be far inferior to their needs than the software they already have for example and not meet their requirements.

Later assuming we won the contract because the sales mgr has wined and dined someone in procurement I'm then expected to lie to the client as to why "our" software is better and why this HUGE gap in FR's isn't filled and then turn it around and blame the client for not asking "the right questions" and get them to buy more crap software to fill the gap.

Jonv

I understand what you are saying, and I agree that we should have transparency and clarity of communication wherever we can. I’m also suspicious of the Gov on many things they’ve done, but on this a slightly badly worded communication looks to me like Hanlon’s Razor.

I say that because as I said before, when you dig deeper the answers are there, not hidden, and all make sense. Unlike digging into eg: the PPE procurement where the further you go the less it makes sense.

This Gov is crap, but they do still get some things right.

I'm a big fan of Hanlon's razor in general but with this government "Follow the Money" seems to be the primary driver.

Totally unrelated but my Mum (and many others) have a decking at her caravan. Its inconveniently 6" too short (to allow the gate to open) but fitted by the only allowed contractor. If it was 6" longer it would require a whole extra length to be cut down.

The park owners own the relationship as you have to book through them and any other decking contractor is not allowed.

Hanlon's razor ? Or does the fact that companies house shows the site owner is a director on the decking company have anything to do with it?

Yes the people who fitted it were incompetent (for other reasons such as unable to line a gate up) but they were following instructions on how many lengths they can use.

Incidentally there are 20 or so caravans of the same make/style with the same problem. Had they not been so hell bent on minimising material costs they could have added a foot to each for barely any cost but now they would need to completely redo the whole side.

Assuming you work for them … as I said who made the decision ?

I don't work for AccuRX (why make that assumption?) I'm a PM in a inner city GP practice. As I said earlier...I don't know.

If you didn’t work for them wouldn’t you think the timing is exploiting covid to gain a wider footprint?

And as I keep saying, AccuRX was chosen because it's one of the few systems that both pharmacies and surgeries can use, as well as a really quick and easy booking system, your GP surgery needs to know if you've had a vaccine. AccuRX is being used as the report system to transfer data back into usable date for the GP surgery as well. it's one of the few off-the-shelf systems available that could do this work in the time scale that was needed. If they get more business from it, then fine, they were johnny on the spot.

Your posts are wildly schizophrenic, you require detailed information, and then make wild accusations or draw fantastical conclusions from dull and straightforward answers. Seems to me you've drawn your own conclusions about the vaccine programme and are just looking (reaching really) for anything that you feel backs up your pre-existing assumptions I'm out. I don't think I'm helping you.

I don’t work for AccuRX (why make that assumption?)

You seem very defensive of this company and used "we"

I’m a PM in a inner city GP practice.

As I said earlier…I don’t know.

And that doesn't bother you?
Someone unknown made decisions .. for reasons they didn't deem to tell you and you don't even know who that person was or THEIR motivations or if they are remotely qualified to make those decisions?

Track and trace is a perfect example (though Harding's position as interim chief executive of the NIHS/UK Health Security Agency is more telling).

On one side they chose possibly the least qualified person in the country to look after people's personal data. Certainly the highest profile one (the poster child for GDPR) for being completely incompetent to be let anywhere near anyone's personal data. It would be like putting Cummings in charge of DVLA eye tests...

On the other hand she has a 100% voting record for voting for what she is told to vote for and is married to a Tory MP.

And as I keep saying, AccuRX was chosen because it’s one of the few systems that both pharmacies and surgeries can use

Again, doesn't that bother you?
Who made the decision to prevent other companies being able to compete and on what basis?

Was it the same person that chose which companies could make ventilators or PPE for the NHS ? (that's rhetorical but I hope you get the point - government appointed, totally unqualified people made the decisions and completely ignored the medical advice)

Myself and tens of millions are somewhat reliant on people like you to check this.
Unless a text says otherwise and claims to be from a surgery we are going to assume:
1) It actually came from the surgery
2) Because it came from the surgery and doesn't say otherwise we have been sent this based on a clinical need that has been assessed by a doctor.

it’s one of the few off-the-shelf systems available that could do this work in the time scale that was needed.

Again I'd want to know what "available" means and what you mean by "timescale"? (Because I'm guessing this is what YOU were told...)

I find it hard to believe that no other company could have come up with a system to send a SMS in the last decade or so they had to prepare.

Who wrote the requirements ?
Who puts the companies into the procurement list and excludes others?

This is especially important in the current government where there is no parliamentary scrutiny.
Given the debacles on PPE/ventilators/track and trace I really don't see how a default position of this was awarded to a company for "services/donations/nepotism" is a paranoid place to start until proven otherwise.

If they get more business from it, then fine, they were johnny on the spot.

No they will be johnny on the spot (future tense)... at such a point as the NHS has no other choices these extra services will be forced on them as the free services are incrementally crippled and the necessary ones are bundled.

That's how it works in the "real world". (Check out any STW Sky TV thread ... for example)
The problem for the NHS is they have been correctly (IMHO) shielded from this in the past and left to do medical stuff without worrying how they get out of a contract when the supplier changes the packages.

Doing something almost identical but way more advanced (remote offshore medicine with a private company) their first question is "exit strategy and lock in") and contractual assurance that base services that they determine cannot be unbundled.
Their (in your words paranoid/schizophrenic) approach is because they have been stung in the past and had very expensive exit strategies.

Their procurement would never allow a single supplier to be the only one able to offer critical services and if for any reason they sole sourced it would be very very heavily scrutinised.

To go back to the point of the invites... any requirements should have communicated HOW and WHY people have been "invited" along with sending the pre-read.
(This is Change Management 101) I (and anyone else who rolls out large scale IT projects) would do this as a matter of course with something as trivial as a time writing module or meeting room booking, let alone sending people for a vaccine.

If someone has been selected because they are on a flu vaccination list then the invite should say so and note that no competent person has reviewed their suitability beyond this so they should phone their GP or ask at the vaccination centre and they should take any allergies with them not rely on it being in the NHS system.

Non of this is rocket science ... it's actually what companies of any significant size do as a matter of course.

My personal opinion is it shouldn't be left up to you and YOU should be receiving information packs noting who decided what and why and if you wish to comment or raise an issue so you can have confidence it has been done correctly..

You shouldn't be put in the position of not knowing who made the decisions or the reasons for them.

To go back to the point of the invites… any requirements should have communicated HOW and WHY people have been “invited”

My wild guess is that its something to do with this pandemic thing that's going on.

Either have the jab, or don't have the jab. If you aren't sure due to your specific medical issues, talk to your GP for advice first.

It really is that simple.

You shouldn’t be put in the position of not knowing who made the decisions or the reasons for them.

Have you actually contacted your GP and asked?

And that doesn’t bother you?

@stevextc that's a big fat NOPE. I care that my patients are getting a vaccine that will help protect them...beyond that, I'm not really interested.

@nickc - I'd go with your previous comment and opt out for now. I don't think you will ever provide an answer that doesn't lead to more twisted logic attempts.
You guys in practice have been hammered and done amazing job in very difficult circumstances - keep up the good work (I'm healthcare but totally different area - don't envy you in the slightest)

BadlyWiredDog

Have you actually contacted your GP and asked?

Firstly "contacting the GP" is an adventure in itself. I'd have to queue outside and get an emergency appointment or follow the website and dial 111.

I know that because I got a text from the actual surgery ... from THEIR number before they changed to their "pandemic appointments" and they specifically asked that people don't book non urgent appointments.
The last one I had I was queued in the "get an appointment line" feeling bleeding from my arse was taking a appointment with someone more in urgent need than I was.

Secondly and most importantly this should be provided BEFORE I got the vaccine the invite not "Do not contact your surgery".

Like with the change in appointments .. rather than simply not answer the phone and have people turn up randomly when they can't get through they informed the patients in advance.

MoreCash

My wild guess is that its something to do with this pandemic thing that’s going on.

Either have the jab, or don’t have the jab. If you aren’t sure due to your specific medical issues, talk to your GP for advice first.

It really is that simple.

No it really isn't... what happens when my GP no longer exists?
What happens when they are forced to use and pay for services they don't want or need because of the contract?

My GP's practice has a dire patient to GP ratio to start with let alone the demographics meaning their average patient is over 60 something. (The numbers come from last year when the CCG were trying to close down our local surgeries and the walk in centre... I don't suppose they have improved since then)

If the PM in a inner city GP practice doesn't care then who does?

Put it another way, are you happy to use a Dyson ventilator if required... and keep the real ones for people who don't think Dyson should have been given the contract and perhaps someone who makes ventilators or at least medical equipment already might have been better.. if only they had supported Brexit as loudly and donated to conservative party funds?

How do you see this as any different ?
No doctor I know of thought Dyson would develop a safe working ventilator ... but that was conveniently avoided by not asking actual doctors...

Deliberatly deceiving patients just isn't on and the pandemic gives no excuse.
If someone is sent a text because they meet a criteria then its no harder to include the reason on the text... equally if for expedience a group of people meeting certain criteria were selected without clinical assessment then its no harder to include that in the text either.

We have had at least a YEAR for the covid vaccines to be rolled out ... (ignoring the ignored preparation recommendation for a viral pandemic) and no amount of incompetence alone can explain why this information wouldn't be sent with the invite.

I'd need to check and can't be arsed but I'd guess had these been sent by post they would have been very very illegal. You can't just pretend to be sending a letter from a GP ... use their headed paper etc. (surely)

I'd just like say how impressed I am that CountZero can contribute in such a measured, useful, considered way at this time. What an amazing person.

I’d just like say how impressed I am that CountZero can contribute in such a measured, useful, considered way at this time. What an amazing person.

Absolutely amazing strength, calmness and composure.

so back to the point of the invites… any requirements should have communicated HOW and WHY people have been “invited”

You think it would be acceptable to send text messages to people saying "you've been invited to this appointment because your GP says you have HIV" or even "you've been invited to this appointment because your GP has indicated you have stupidly high BMI". Even something that probably isn't that "sensitive" like - you have been invited because of your historically high blood pressure is personal information that the text message company really don't need to know. There were media stories of people who got invited unexpectedly early (if you have RA - it presumably wasn't unexpected) who after a bit of effort were able to work out why - e.g. one had been recorded as completely the wrong height (I think it was something stupid like mixing m and cm) so had the BMI of the moon. I'm sure there would be a few others who suspected a mistake but grabbed the opportunity.

In amongst all your hysteria above it seems you have a genuine concern about possible contraindications for some of the non-vaccine ingredients. That is a question which should have come out in the discussion with the clinic staff. Firstly they should have been asking if you've ever had allergic reactions to other medication (if they didn't this is the only time in my entire dealings with the medical profession that they didn't ask this); then when you said yes there are special protocols to follow for working our which vaccine is most appropriate - they should have been able to get you to someone who understood your concerns and was able to get you personal advice.

However, given your approach to this thread I imagine you probably tackled this like an excited Border Collie and went snapping away at people who had no idea why they were the target for your enthusiasm and were more interested in creating a drama.

I don't know if you actually got the vaccine or not - but if you decided not to - I'd have a chat to your RA consultant who seems to understand the issues you've had before and get advice on which vaccine is most appropriate for you. For 99.9% of people (at least until the AZ issues emerged) it will make no difference - expecting the system to work well for the 0.1% is niave.

I thought I got the invite due to being on the list for Flu vaccinations?
Which if so was NOT from my GP... but simply a list of people on the flu vaccine list handed over by the GP.

It's hardly melodramatic to expect that a SMS claiming to be from my GP should actually be from my GP and I should be able to rely on that.

This is how it was pre-covid...

Pre-Covid - I'd assume an SMS from my GP had been clinically assessed and if the GP thought necassary would be cross checked with my rheumatologist.

The "new normal" seems to be that a third party can take a list and send a SMS and claim it is from my GP. The GP has not necassarily clinically assessed (and from what I understand if I was sent this because I'm on the flu vaccine list it was sim[ply because they handed over the list) this nor had the chance to cross check.

Whereas I can cope with that now I do worry that if I get older and have cognitive issues (as seems to run in my family) I won't be in any position to assess that.

How hard is it to see that many people rely on something from their GP as actually coming from their GP? In the past when the receptionist sends something (like test results) she will PP the GP ... making it clear the GP has not actually sent the letter but has said to forwards the results.

I then assume if any of those results (I don't understand) mean I need to see the GP she will schedule an appointment. If not then I assume there is no need.

For example:

Dear Mr XtC,

I now have the results of your recent stool test back from the laboratory. This does not show any evidence of infection.
It is sensible that we have referred you to the specialist for some more investigations.

Please make an appointment to speak to me by telephone if you would like to discuss the results further.

Best regards,

Dr XXXX

TEL xxx-xx-xxx

I assume that the GP has dictated this and considered my medical history

I'd also assume that when the GP texted me at 10pm urging me to book the specialist ASAP it was for a reason... not just a random automated text.

I got a letter from my GP inviting me to contact them to arrange an appointment as for some reason, they didn't have a mobile number for me (although I've had the same number forever, it must have been at least 8 years since I've had to visit my GP so maybe they've updated their systems or something).

Phoned them up, got through on the second attempt and I'm booked in for my first vaccine on Wednesday. I didn't even bother asking which one I'd be given as I won't have any choice in the matter.

Best of all, it's a 5-minute walk from mine. 🙂

In amongst all your hysteria above it seems you have a genuine concern about possible contraindications for some of the non-vaccine ingredients. That is a question which should have come out in the discussion with the clinic staff. Firstly they should have been asking if you’ve ever had allergic reactions to other medication (if they didn’t this is the only time in my entire dealings with the medical profession that they didn’t ask this); then when you said yes there are special protocols to follow for working our which vaccine is most appropriate – they should have been able to get you to someone who understood your concerns and was able to get you personal advice.

Clinic = disused office building
I'd already been sent a text that for every possible reason looked like a fake... no number, do not phone your GP etc. but after checking out it seemed legitimate.

Yes they asked so I asked if they meant IgE mediated only to which the nice bloke who'd taken an interest in my cycling t-shirt said he didn't know what immunoglobulin was.

I told him about the anti-biotic and said it would be best to check it on my medical records then he told me he didn't have access to them.

I started to wonder how I'd got this invite and why? I knew I wasn't in the age range being vaccinated so it must be another reason so I asked and got told they didn't have access to that information either.

I'd been given the literature 15 mins ? earlier ... the GP is closed (8pm) so I can't even try and find out and I'm told "its up to you if you have it or not"

The last time I actually spoke to the GP (in person when my bum was bleeding) she had told me she would be looking carefully into the vaccines and possible side effects for me given my history and would if necassary consult my RA. At the time we both expected some nice results from my stool test ... some easy treatment and move on. She booked the emergency examination/biopsy as a precaution due to possible (Covid) delays then after the email for the negative stool she texted me at 10pm at night to urge me to get an appointment ASAP.

So perhaps you can see why I'd take a "text from my GP" as being "a text from my GP".

However, given your approach to this thread I imagine you probably tackled this like an excited Border Collie and went snapping away at people who had no idea why they were the target for your enthusiasm and were more interested in creating a drama.

Because all has been said is lie after lie... pretending the text was from my GP when it wasn't. It was an automated text pretending to be from my GP and the last thing my GP said to me face to face is she wanted to monitor the vaccines and side effects and consult with the RA.

I don’t know if you actually got the vaccine or not – but if you decided not to – I’d have a chat to your RA consultant who seems to understand the issues you’ve had before and get advice on which vaccine is most appropriate for you. For 99.9% of people (at least until the AZ issues emerged) it will make no difference – expecting the system to work well for the 0.1% is niave.

I got the first vaccine... (AZ) partly because I worked out when I had the cancer scare I don't really mind if I live or die. I worked out the life insurance is actually more useful to my son so WTF and partly because I don't want to be responsible for passing the virus onto someone and our home is very high risk.

I feel let down by my GP (who I like as a person) because the last thing she told me was she was going to look into the vaccines and my medical history, not just hand over a list of people eligible for the flu jab who would send a text pretending to be from the GP.

GP prepares list of people to invite for vaccine

Sends list to widely used third party service provider

3PSP send texts out to the people the GP asked them to.

where do you stand on Royal Mail delivering letters from your GP? Do you think they should get the admin staff to bring them round personally?

where do you stand on Royal Mail delivering letters from your GP? Do you think they should get the admin staff to bring them round personally?

That made me chuckle. Quite a lot.

Pfft - I wouldn't recognise the admin staff from my GP's surgery, anyone could turn up claiming to be from the surgery. No I'd need the actual doctor on my doorstep just to be sure, but not the one I saw last time as I think he was a locum and will have moved on, and the one before that left to go on mat leave, so there was the one I saw before that who was a partner in the practice - I think I'd still recognise her. And she'd need to have my medical records with her just in case I had any questions about why she'd come round. Though perhaps I'd need someone from the GMC there to confirm she was still a doctor, but how would I know they were really from the GMC?

GP prepares list of people to invite for vaccine

That is not what we are told happens.

What we are told was

The priority groups were chosen through searches that are embedded in every GP system. The COVID priority searches are mostly age based apart from group 6 which were predominately (but not entirely) the same group that we invite for a flu jab each year, and suffer from similar diseases (asthma, and other respiratory diseases) In most practices those searches were done by admin staff. The same staff that run these sorts of searches all the time, and a better at doing this work than the doctors are.

where do you stand on Royal Mail delivering letters from your GP? Do you think they should get the admin staff to bring them round personally?

I already covered that.
I expect that if the letter is signed by or for (PP) the GP that the letter has been prepared, dictated or at least checked BY the GP.

If the letter has been sent out by admin staff I expect it to clearly say so.

Unless I'm wrong it would be very illegal to pretend a letter was actually written by your GP if it wasn't.

Unless I’m wrong it would be very illegal to pretend a letter was actually written by your GP if it wasn’t.

I do work on behalf of a minister of state. He very rarely has time to check that the routine work I do for him is correct, and the hundreds of thousands of pounds I pay out or recover has been done properly.

Then I think you have unrealistic expectations.

'The GP' to me is someone working at the practise with the capability and authority to do the level of work needed. I want my GP to have time to see patients and deal with their health problems. I'm perfectly happy if the admin staff / practise management are running mail merge searches to invite people meeting particular criteria to have whatever work done. Heck, I'm even OK if they're writing the letter to say that I'm invited for a vaccination, or a wellman check, or whatever - I trust and assume they are doing it with the knowledge of the GP's / partners / Management team of the practise rather than freeforming it.

Sorry, can't really add more than that.

I feel let down by my GP (who I like as a person) because the last thing she told me was she was going to look into the vaccines and my medical history,

TBF to most GPs, the vaccine invites timings are largely out their individual control, so she might have a look at this, but not realized you'd already been invited for a vaccine. After all, GP workloads are pretty heavy right now.

not just hand over a list of people eligible for the flu jab who would send a text pretending to be from the GP.

You think some random person in a GP practice is just handing over flu vaccine patient data via a politically chosen IT company who're then sending texts to patients? Have I got that right, that's what you think is going on?

I do work on behalf of a minister of state. He very rarely has time to check that the routine work I do for him is correct, and the hundreds of thousands of pounds I pay out or recover has been done properly.

Do you sign it with their name and try and make it look like the minister has personally written the letter? (rhetoric)

More importantly if someone sends me a text "from HMRC" what should I do with it?
a) Give my bank details
b) Report it as a scam
c) ignore it

d) check it, find it's genuine, accept it