This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

GPs buried under trusts' workload dump

GP 'black alert' guidance suggests cap of 25-35 routine consultations a day

GP practices facing an unsustainable workload should divert or cancel all routine appointments, under a new 'black alert' system proposed by the BMA.

The BMA, which voted in favour of GP practice black alerts last year, has established four 'operational pressures escalation levels' similar to the system used in hospitals.

Whether a practice can take the action unilaterally, without prior approval, is currently unclear.

The BMA guidance, prepared by the GP Committee, suggests that 25 routine appointments a day are a 'safe' limit for individual GPs, with 35 deemed as 'unsafe'. For more complex consultations, the number is lower.

After this, the practice should 'divert patients to other clinicians or alternative providers or later sessions/days'.

If all GPs in a practice are working at unsafe levels, a locality hub should take on its 'overspill' patients.

Meanwhile, if all practices in the same locality are reporting unsafe working levels, all routine long-term conditions clinics should be cancelled, and hospitals told 'discharge management will be suspended until primary care recovers'.

This comes as a Pulse survey revealed that GPs in the UK have an average of 41.5 patient contacts every day - 60% more than the number considered safe by European GPs.

The guidance says that 'appropriate limits on workload will depend on the unique circumstances of each practice and the preferences of each individual GP, as well as the complexity of care being provided'.

The BMA suggests therefore 'a range in the number of appointments per day to show when a GP may move into more "unsafe" practice (red), depending on whether the appointments are routine or complex'.

The guidance says: 'For example, up to 25 routine doctor-patient contacts a day could be deemed ‘safe’, with GPs only reaching "unsafe" working levels at 35 or more routine patient contacts per day.

'In comparison, anything over 15 doctor-patient contacts for long-term, complex or mental health conditions could be said to be "unsafe" due to the more demanding nature of the consultations.'

The BMA said that the system 'will only succeed within a locality where a range of safe working levels has been discussed and agreed, and where practices are assured that all other providers are operating above agreed minimum quality and capacity measures'.

It added that 'such a system will need peer-controlled audit and free exchange of information'.

GPC chair Dr Richard Vautrey said the guidance meant 'working within the existing contractual mechanisms to be able to deliver a safe and sustainable service'.

He said: 'It's in everybody's interest whether that's the local CCG, NHS England or general practice, to have a sustainable safe service. We would hope that local commissioners will work with practices to enable that to happen...

'No right-minded thinking person would want their patients to be seen by tired, exhausted doctors.'

Dr Vautrey said the black alert system was necessary as GP workloads 'increasingly unmanageable' owing to 'the demand of more complex patient needs, widespread recruitment and retention issues, and years of underinvestment – all of which takes a toll on GPs’ physical, mental and social health'.

The proposal of capping appointments and diverting to overflow hubs formed part of the GPC's Urgent Prescription for General Practice published two years ago, and the BMA's Annual Representative Meeting voted in favour of GP black alerts last June.

An NHS England spokesperson said: 'While arbitrary caps on patient appointments would breach GPs’ contracts, we understand the pressures general practice is facing. That’s why the NHS is investing £2.4 bn extra in GP services, growing the number of new doctors entering general practice, and rolling out evening and weekend appointments to patients across England over this coming year.'

The operational pressures escalation levels’ (OPEL) alert system

Level 1

Individual GPs or other clinicians are at or above the locally agreed safe level of working.

Action: Internal practice action to divert patients to other clinicians or alternative providers or later sessions/days. Notify position to Locality Hub.

Level 2

One practice reaches unsafe working levels.

Action: Practice reports status to Locality Hub. Hub initiates improved triage and allows practice access to booked overspill appointments.

Level 3

Several locality practices reach unsafe working levels

Action: Hub initiates improved or centralised triage and releases all overspill appointments. Other practices and Hub clinics are alerted to potential “Black Alert” status.

Level 4

All practices in the locality report unsafe working.

Action: Locality Hub switches available workforce to address overspill (Triaged and booked appointments) thereby cancelling routine LTC and specialist clinics. Locality alerts Hospital that discharge management will be suspended until primary care recovers. Planned early discharges are therefore temporarily stopped.

Source: BMA






Readers' comments (29)

  • Nice words but nothing will change, it will only get worse which is exactly what I felt when the gp forward view etc was announced

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Took Early Retirement

    Too late! Learned today that a former partner of mine has handed in her notice aged 56. No surprise there. I went at 57. It's all just too much.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The current Contract does not allow the luxury of defined number of consultations per year.
    Until the Contract is changed to appointments/ year or we define safety first, we GPs cannot unilaterally say we are going to breach Contracts.
    The Contract will then stop being fee/ patient to fee/ appointment or a salaried Contract with safe appointment numbers.
    But Dr BG' case shows that until BMA begins to define safe working practice, we will be individually responsible no matter how hard we work.
    In Dr BG's case, the poor doctor was covering 3/4 other doctors and not deemed to be doing enough in a timely manner by the expert doctor witnesses. We leave ourselves wide open to Litigation.
    It is upto Richard Vautery and GPC to define safety first. It cannot be an arbitrary practice based concept

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am not sure what the plan here is:

    If we have 10 partners, seeing 30 patients each, we can each divert 5, to make things safer, fine so far.
    But 5 partners are retiring. I might do a half measure recruitment, so only recruit 1 new partner.

    Does that mean I know divert 100 extra patients each day and instead picket a much bigger partnership share? Doesn’t really sit right.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I am concerned "up to 25 routine doctor-patient contacts a day could be deemed ‘safe’, with GPs only reaching "unsafe" working levels at 35 or more routine patient contacts per day". The key word here is "routine". There does not seem to be any limit to unscheduled appointments, telephone calls, additional visits etc. This seems to therefore condone the status quo.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I'm sorry I could not find an adequate reference from a respected journal. So Wikipedia it is;

    Cloud cuckoo land is a state of absurdly, over-optimistic fantasy or an unrealistically idealistic state where everything is perfect. Someone who is said to "live in cloud cuckoo land" is a person who thinks that things that are completely impossible might happen, rather than understanding how things really are.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Which is it? 25 or 35? This will just be another stick to beat us with to reduce pay so all GPs will currently ‘opt-out’ and continue to overwork themselves. I can never see this government agreed to reduce our workload by 40% and expect them to increase pay in line with similar professionals.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • All you can eat buffet funding has to go.
    Awaiting the annual stats return on unsafe consulting levels. No partners will report ‘breaches’ as their contract will be hit.
    If the 36th patient is an asthmatics who dies because you don’t see them go to jail. If you don’t follow up someone dumped from hospital with ‘gp to follow up renal failure/dodgy cxr etc’ and they die go to jail.

    Thus the only answer is to take half the profits and work ‘safe’ levels ensuring medicine is best done as a part time hobby for spouses of bankers or landed rentiers

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If you (and you should) consider a telephone call, reports, blood results, meds management just as relevant and real as a face-to-face appointment I suspect we are all working 'unsafely' every day. But if we all reduce massively our work to 'safe levels' what is going to happen to the unfinished work (maybe the powers that be genuinely believe we don't do anything - just like when they believed we did nothing at night and none of us would get near QoF targets again due to doing very little work and our general uselessness.
    Do they actually have any idea how much work we are doing 7 days per week?!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I dunno. I see the potential pitfalls if diverting is going to hit income, but surely starting to define safe workload is a step in the right direction? I like the idea of headlines stating that “80% of GP practices are on black alert”, maybe then the state of primary care will finally get some proper attention?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page50 results per page

Have your say