In the US, we'd just go straight to a dermatologist, who would either remove it on the spot, or for a location that's liable to scar badly, refer to a specialist surgeon. For somebody fair skinned with lots of sun damage like myself, it's an annual "ritual".
Even for private health care, you usually see a GP first (could be a private GP or NHS, in-person or video) and they then refer you to the next thing whatever that may be. ( N.B. that a NHS GP can give you a referral that you use for private treatment)
There are some things you can just straight up book an appointment for yourself without a referral from a GP, but 95% of the time you start with a GP.
No idea specifically about dermatologists, but my expectation would be that would be the sort of thing that would need a referral for. Perhaps for some "non-medical" procedures and 100% for cosmetic procedures you don't need a referral, but anything even tangentially close to The C Word would almost certainly be sending you down the normal channels.
Sample of one, but every spot (5+ over the past decade) I’ve asked my dermatologist about has resulted in a biopsy and of those several were cancer.
Not to be too cynical but... is there a financial incentive for them to do a biopsy?
Of course it might be best practice as well.
In the US, you would go straight to a dermatologist, because your health insurance plan (or high paying job) allows you to do that.
People with an HMO would begin with the GP, because that's what the plan requires.
yes, and in the entire GP practice they do not have a single device invented in the 21st century. All the tools they have are a stethoscope, oxymeter, otoscope, blood pressure monitor, basically stuff you might have at home
They can't, for example, do a rapid antigen test or a lateral flow test, ultrasound or anything else you may consider a sign of modern medicine and diagnostics. Stuff countries in Eastern Europe and East Asia have already adopted.
Their diagnostic conclusion is heavily influenced by a spreadsheet that lists statistic probability of illness for different demographics, as advised Mckinsey.
If you happen to have a serious condition but fall into a group that is 'suppose to be' healthy (young man with Pneumonia) you will be bounced and told to go home until your condition deteriorates.
They will gatekeep you from getting an X-ray. When your condition deteriorates and is incontrovertible you will be taken seriously, but now you need serious treatment instead of a quick round of antibiotics.
Popular opinion in Britain is that the NHS is great, but it's overburdened. But it's fallen behind - management practices are archaic, diagnostics is poor, and there is lack of accountability and first reaction to medical errors is to brush off the patients / victims.
Over the past few decades, the first reaction of NHS management is to cover up their mistakes.
Just read the Wiki page about Great Ormond Street Hospitalk, the hospital that treats the country's most severely ill children:
> Great Ormond Street Hospital was involved in a scandal regarding the removal of live tissue and organs from children during surgery and onward sale to pharmaceutical companies without the knowledge of parents in 2001
Or the case with bone surgeon Yaser Jabbar, at the same hospital, who caused severe harm to 22 children and the hospital fought the parents and brushed issues under the carpet. Issues like removing wrong organ and getting length of a foot wrong by 20 centimeters. He operated on 700 children before someone put a stop to it
