"Some very odd statements from some of the GP partners on here"
Nothing odd about my statements at all. When we have extra work that we can't manage (this is unusual) we look for locum cover. When we don't have extra work, oddly enough we don't book locums.
Our locum GPs, who I've said are valued colleagues, are grown up enough to know that locums provide ad-hoc cover. It's sort of implied by the title.
The odd comments are from locum GPs, who seem to want to be owed some sort of employment rights and be booked even though there is nothing for them to do, whilst also gaining the benefits of flexibility and higher rates. You can't have everything.
I think this won't end well for the government. GP is held together by Doctors (largely Partners) going well above their allowed hours to get all the work done.
Will I be checking blood results after I get home if I'm salaried? I think not.
"You can't expect all the benefits without any of the drawbacks and expect NHS England to pay you when there isn't any work done for qoff and access has been significantly reduced"
You just don't get it, do you? Our contract is not dependent on activity. So we'd expect to be paid regardless of whether we spoke to 1 patient or 100.
And, as it happens, the number of patient contacts hasn't changed (only the nature of them has) and QOF is still being done remotely or wherever possible (e.g. asthma reviews).
Maybe use some of your newly acquired free time to understand the GMS contract?
Locum work shouldn't be cancelled, we certainly never have. However, your booking terms should cover this eventuality (you do have booking terms, right?). My booking terms (and I'm talking over 8 years ago) had a sliding scale fee if a practice cancelled at short notice and I couldn't rebook the day.
As to your other question, I would again direct you to our contract. It does not pay by activity, it is a block contract. 99pc of the time we are overbooked, we don't get paid any extra. This is a highly unusual situation - but again, you cannot expect practices to book you when they don't have work for you.
As to "why they are protected" - well the government normally does very well out of this fixed deal. There was a brief drop in activity, although things are getting back to normal. This was an exceptional situation.
"Also why are these partners also locuming as out of hours doctors? If detest then locum attitude so much?"
I don't think there are many that detest the locum attitude. Most of us (and I've been a partner, a locum, and salaried at various times) simply take a grown up view: when you locum there is no guarantee of long term work other than what you've booked, no sick leave, no holiday etc and to compensate for this your pro-rata rate is higher and you have flexibility.
You can't expect all the benefits without any of the drawbacks and expect practices to book you when there isn't any work.
Locums, you seem to misunderstand the nature of contracting to the NHS. Let's be clear: it is absolutely for profit.
If the NHS contracts a cleaning company to do some work, the cleaning company does it for a profit. If you sell artificial hips to the NHS, it is for profit. If you're a Consultant and work for the NHS, it is to make a profit (ie your salary).
And yes, we are independent contractors. I'd suggest you spend a little time reading the GMS contract. It may furnish your opinion a little more.
That's lovely, Locums, well done.
But again, why would you expect a practice to book you if they don't have work for you?
Locums are valued colleagues, but are by their very definition basing their business on ad-hoc work.
Why on earth would locums expect to be booked for work when practices don't have any work for them?
"Free indemnity" - so what?
How about being funded to undertake this non-GMS work?
This is like watching two bullies fight over the mars bar that they've just stolen from a younger child
Well that's 50% of a Partner's job gone. Could NHS England be clear about what this includes - specific reference to CQC and Revalidation would be appreciated.
Whilst I wouldn't argue about the analysis of the huge amount of work what is coming, why did you all sign the PCN DES just a couple of weeks ago? You knew full well that delivery of the DES AND the Covid response was impossible.
VOLUNTARILY signing something and then coming up with an analysis about why you can't do it 2 weeks later just makes you look silly.
Most of us would concede that the service would be completely unsustainable if even a small proportion of our BAME colleagues were pulled back from the 'front line'. It's barely sustainable as it is.
As for "culturally competent occupational risk assessment tools" - don't make me laugh. Our occupational risk assessment tools are far from competent without the added complexity of being "culturally competent". Basic competence would be a luxury at this point.
"We found a very easy way of not signing up...We didnt sign up."
We used the same technique and lo and behold, we're not signed up.
I don't understand. This isn't new information that has suddenly appeared in the last 11 days (when practices had to decide whether to sign or not).
It's like asking someone to punch you in the face and then complaining that it hurts!
Let's be honest here: if NHS England advised a specific tool, practices wouldn't be allowed to fudge the scores and it would be patently obvious that GP is unsustainable without our BAME colleagues who make up a disproportionate amount of GP. In fact, it's barely sustainable WITH them!
That should read
A frequently overlooked part is that the DES practices have to take over care home patients from the NON DES practices
Wait until the terms of the DES begin to bite.
A frequently overlooked part is that the DES practices have to take over care home patients from the DES practices:
7.3.1: By 31 July 2020, a PCN is required to:
c) support people entering, or already resident in the PCN’s Aligned Care Home, to register with a practice in the aligned PCN if this is not already the case
4.1.4 (Enhanced Care Homes Spec)
In supporting patients to re-register with a practice in the aligned PCN, care homes, PCNs and CCGs should describe the benefits offered under the enhanced service, and consider the use of advocacy services to support this transition.
Well many CMHTs said they were shut so we stopped referring. It's amazing that so many were still being referred.
Yes, despite being told that the DES is not being brought forwards in terms of "weekly rounds" and that this was only Covid related, the SMRs are also being brought forward - but this is NOTHING to do with the DES and everything to do with Covid.
This is so confusing that I might have to drive to Barnard Castle to clear my mind and sort out my eyesight.