This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Give practices 'preferential treatment' if they decide to take back out-of-hours, says GPC

GPs should be allowed to opt-in to providing out-of-hours services and should be given ‘preferential treatment’ to other providers if they do, the GPC has proposed as it publishes its full plans to revamp out-of-hours care.

In its first comprehensive proposals to rebut the Government’s plans out-of-hours care, the GPC cited areas where GPs had been prevented from providing out-of-hours care, despite wanting to, and said any new system should allow GPs to opt-in when they wanted to and be the preferred provider over private companies, for example.

However, the policy document also emphasised that GPs must retain the right to opt out of directly providing out-of-hours care, warning that any attempts to push through compulsory responsibility would result in ‘immediate retention problems’. It also said no changes to the current contract were necessary.

The proposals come as part of the GPC’s alternative plans for out-of-hours reforms that rebutts a series of Government calls for GPs to become the ‘named clinician’ for their patients 24/7 and taking on responsibility for ‘signing off’ all their patients’ out-of-hours treatment.

The document said: ‘Changes to the GP contract are not required to secure improvements in out-of-hours care. We are willing to engage in discussion about improving out-of-hours provision and increasing the influence GPs have on commissioning and designing these services, but this should not be frame as GPs “taking back” out-of-hours care. Any attempt to push this through would be likely to result in considerable recruitment and immediate retention problems.’

But the GPC said that to take on more responsibility GPs must also be given ‘real power’ over commissioning via CCGs, including GP review of existing contracts ahead of their expiry date.

Click here to read the full document

‘Preferably, changes should go further by giving preferential treatment to local practices and GP-led organisations that want to be involved in out-of-hours care to be able to do this. Practices should be given the right to opt back into out-of-hours provision individually or collectively where they express a desire to do so (as recently in Hackney), alongside the existing right to opt out,’ the paper said.

As reported by Pulse, the GPC wants to integrate the fragmented urgent care system, including tying together the 111 call-handling service with all other urgent care services on the ground locally, such as the GP out-of-hours service, walk-in centres and A&E minor injury units. This could be done via a redesigned tariff or block funding method, the paper said.

It said: ‘The urgent care system has become highly fragmented and confusing for patients. To avoid duplication and make access points more obvious to patients, robust CCG-led commissioning should integrate the health services involved in out-of-hours unscheduled care including telephone triage and advice, primary medical services out of hours, walk-in centres, “Darzi” clinics, NHS 111, A&E tier 2 services and even some parts of the 999 service. The service should also have close links with community nursing, hospice care, pharmacy and social services.’

‘Consideration needs to be given to pricing structures in the system to enable this. A redesigned tariff or block funding method for the whole system could help providers work together more closely.’

To do this effectively, and to make the use of urgent care efficient, the 111 service must also be led by GPs rather than lay call handlers, the GPC paper added.

The paper said: ‘Triage of patients is a skilled activity and should be undertaken by the most skilled and experienced clinicians available to allow the handling of large volumes of work with accuracy and speed and executive authority, not by untrained lay people – even when supported by a computer algorithm.’

‘Non-clinical or inexperienced call handlers are forced to rely on risk-averse software which can escalate the level of response and so undo any predicted cost benefit.’

It added that managing demand would be a key challenge and called for better health education in schools to support this, as well as the setting up of appropriate care plans for the most vulnerable patients, to be managed by their carers rather than their GP. It further tentatively suggested that CCGs could be made responsible for provision as well as commissioning of out-of-hours care but said this suggestion required further discussion.

The paper said: ‘Ultimately, it may be worth allowing CCGs to become the providers as well as the commissioners of out-of-hours services. This is a matter for further debate, though David Nicholson, the chief executive of NHS England, has stated that the integration of commissioning and provision will be considered against particular sets of challenges.’

The GPC position paper reflects where the GPC stands on the issue of out of hours only, but was informed by a roundtable discussion also featuring the RCGP, the Patients Association, NHS Alliance, the BMA’s consultants committee and a community healthcare trust medical director.

Readers' comments (11)

  • Triage means to "Sort" in french and it has been shown time and again that experience is needed. We keep making the same mistakes as the past..........

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Give Christmas to Turkeys its only fair

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • You can't stuff the cat back into the bag. It's too late, OOH has been privatized and is subject to competition law.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I love the bit where it says "However, the policy document also emphasised that GPs must retain the right to opt out of directly providing out-of-hours care,"

    Its too late for that isn't it?I'll be getting some shares in rectogesic!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Integrating the currently fragmented Urgent Care sysytem is a great starting position statement. Bring them all into one contract I say - 111 / OOH / Darzi / MIUs etc. Interesting re giving prioirity to GPs / GP led companies - let's see how DH handle that one. I think for once this is a very positive suggestion from the GPC and I welcome it as a stance.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The reversal of out-of hours to GPs can be seen as the government moving away from choice and competition and accepting that a policy of fragmentation of services fails! This should be a welcomed step in reversing everything that their reforms were about - surely! the proposals for unifying care should be seen as a reconvening of core NHS work into NHS otrganisations (after all there would be absolutly no profit in it unless costs spriralled and no CCGF in their right mind would commission spiralling costs! This sounds like true 'GP Led' reform and not the top down imposition (That they said they would never do!) proposed by Jeremy Huntenable! It's time for the politicians to stand up and be counted; do they allow GPs to commission services for their patients or do they centrally impose contracts and services upon them (exactly the failure they driticise the last governemnt for!)? 'GP led' commissioning or an abandonment from their entire reform agenda and 'top down' politically led reorganisation? - We will soon see if Mr Cameron is a man of his word!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • And you guys truly believe the goal posts won't change and GPs won't be blamed for poor OOH care? Most of us don't have direct management role and we are already blamed by Mr Hunt.

    I would only contemplate it if the government changes the rules and
    1 no contract can be imposed
    2 will adher to DDRB recommendation every year.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Agree the GPC are making some good points here. We do need an integrated urgent care system. The problem is that for integration to really work you need financial incentives and in reality organisational federation/mergers. Otherwise providers tend to stick in their silos and never the twain shall meet. There is a great opportunity for GPs to work together in cooperatives (or even for profit companies) to join all the strands together - with other clinical colleagues. A private provider could never do this since it depends on existing providers working together in a different way, so it has to come from the front line. The commissioner provider split causes more problems and competition law then just compounds it. You only need to consider that we have NHS111, GP OOHs, Darzi walk in services, MIUs, Urgent care Centres/Emergency Departments, in hours GPs etc etc as seperately contracted services to understand why the system at the moment is a shambles and cannot cope. And the poor old patients have no chance of understanding what to do! Time for a leap of faith and let GPs and other clinical colleagues sort this mess out.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • How can GPs be a prefered provider to a private company when thats exactly what GPs are?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Because GPs are governed by GMC's code of conduct which prohibits us from exploiting the patients to make extortionate profits. Something a truly independent private sector providers are not governed by - they are purely driven by profits.

    Or we could try a new business model such as social enterprising that's now becoming popular. But GP practice by most are already very similar in model where the company (GP practice) makes enough to be sustainable but without exploiting the society.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say