Just 12% of GPs would consider PM's seven-day access contract
EXCLUSIVE Just one in eight GPs say they would consider signing up to the Prime Minister’s new voluntary contract to provide routine GP access at weekends and in the evenings, a Pulse survey has found.
More than 900 GPs responded to Pulse’s survey, with 638 (70%) saying they would not consider the contract, which David Cameron said would ‘get rid of the box-ticking and the form filling’, as well as additional funding, in exchange for practices offering routine appointments 8-8, seven days a week and extra funding.
However, 12% of respondents said they would consider the contract, with many GPs said that the defunding of the GMS contract may leave them with little choice.
The contract will be offered to practices or federations with list sizes bigger than 30,000 patients, but there are little details about what it will entail.
Local leaders in Manchester have already agreed to a new contract to be offered to larger practices, which involves an offer for GP partners to be bought out of their premises and has already been well received.
But Pulse’s survey revealed that there is little appetite for any offer to be made by the Government as yet.
GPs against the contract told Pulse that they don’t see how extra routine hours can be delivered with already severely stretched workforce and resources, and that the scheme was about winning over voters rather than achieving evidence-based improvement to care.
Dr David Coleman, a GP in Doncaster told Pulse that widespread adoption of the seven day contract would be ‘foolhardy’ given current under-resourcing, and called for GPs to object en masse.
He said: ‘It is a significant challenge to provide safe and effective routine GP services five days a week. Stretching our limited resources to provide seven day routine services, which are not supported by evidence and have been poorly utilised in pilots, would be foolhardy, and I firmly believe we have to be realistic and stand united on this issue.’
Dr Eithne MacRae, a GP partner in Rainford, St Helens, said politicans do not understand how much extra work GPs already take on.
She told Pulse: ‘We offered Saturday morning surgeries for a full year after the new contract of 2004 and stopped these when we were only getting two patients per session. This out-of-hours demand has been fuelled by politicians in a bid to gain votes.’
Among those who said they they would consider the contract, the vast majority said it would only be possible if properly remunerated, or that the current GMS contract was so underfunded they would have little choice.
Lincoln GP and Pulse First5 blogger Dr Phil Williams said: ‘The current GMS and PMS contracts simply don’t enable practices to hire enough GPs, as well as other clinical and non-clinical staff, to deliver the quality of services we would like.’
‘We already provide Thursday evening and Saturday morning clinics. But, if the Government is going to appropriately fund the new “voluntary contract” which would enable us to provide a wider range of services and better access for our patients, then we would look at it.’
Pulse has already revealed that many CCGs involved in the initial pilots of seven day working, funded by the PMs Challenge Fund had scrapped or limited weekend working because of a lack of patient demand, a Pulse investigation found a quarter of pilots had cut their hours.
And NHS England’s own review said there was limited evidence to support routine GP access on Sundays.
Results in full
Would you consider signing up to the voluntary GP contract announced by David Cameron for larger practices to provide weekend and evening access?
Yes: 111 (12.2%)
No: 638 (70.1%)
Don’t know: 161 (17.7%)
Total number of respondents: 910
The survey was launched on 26th October 2015, collating responses using the SurveyMonkey tool. The 20 questions asked covered a wide range of GP topics, to avoid selection bias on one issue. The survey was advertised to readers via our website and email newsletter, with a prize draw for a Samsung HD TV as an incentive to complete the survey. A total of 922 GPs answered this question
Have your say
IMPORTANT: On Wednesday 7 December 2016, we implemented a new log in system, and if you have not updated your details you may experience difficulties logging in. Update your details here. Only GMC-registered doctors are able to comment on this site.
Readers' comments (26)
Anonymous | GP Partner11 Jan 2016 10:12am
Are all these 12% based in Manchester! What is wrong with these people. If we can't provide a safe 5 day service how can we expect to provide a 7 day service with fewer GP's and nurses? beggars belief.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | GP Partner11 Jan 2016 10:19am
I think, irrespective of location, these are the BMA and LMC diehards who dive for every penny as part of their career prostitution portfolio.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Sessional/Locum GP11 Jan 2016 10:33am
Voluntary? They dropped the word "voluntary" from the contract title a few weeks ago. Any guesses as to why?
JH Plan
1.Line up the lemmings and form federations.
2. Neatly segue lemming federations into another contract which is clearly impossible to deliver with current financial and workforce resources.
3. Ensure that all accountability for failure lies with local GPs and commissioners.
4. With a heavy heart, tell the public that everyone but me has failed.
5. Get on the blower to Capita and share the good news.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | GP Partner11 Jan 2016 10:38am
I hope the 12% realise that there will be no extra money - there might be short term funding at the expense of small and other non-participating practices but the ultimate intention will be more work for the same/less money while the increasingly underfunded majority collapse. So thanks, Manchester and others of that ilk.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Sessional/Locum GP11 Jan 2016 10:49am
It is OUR fault. As GPs we failed to rise against clueless politicians with irrelevant hidden agendas. Time to make up for that and unleash a massive tanker of whoopa$$.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | GP Partner11 Jan 2016 10:57am
It's not ALL our faults - I feel no collective responsibility for those who run with every political whim despite all protests/advice to the contrary nor for those who acquire political positions and then presume to judge us and/or facilitate the political damage being done to general practice
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Sessional/Locum GP11 Jan 2016 11:04am
Mate, we allowed them to rise up the ranks and become political animals. We chose to not have a voice by simply "getting on with it" for many years. Work to rule, tell your patients sorry no can do, no funding from up above. You chose to encourage the governments' abuse of GPs by offering massive amounts of unpaid good will. Take your cardigan off and see an optician.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | GP Partner11 Jan 2016 11:10am
If 11.04 was in response to 10.57, you are making a number of unfounded and untrue assumptions to support your argument.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | Sessional/Locum GP11 Jan 2016 11:18am
Collective responsibility, individual... who cares? We are where we are and divided we are weak. Don't worry about who left the front door open, just focus on apprehending the burglar.
We need to move forward united, brave and bold. Cowards and collaborators should go so we can fight a strong battle against the tyrant that is JH.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Gillespie | GP Partner11 Jan 2016 11:22am
The government couldn't possibly afford the costs of extending a full GP service to 12 hours per day 7 days per week, bearing in mind the hike in hourly rates for weekend and evening hours you would be looking at doubling your budget for general practice, which is just not going to happen, it will just be a hash bash again with government claims of what they are providing failing to match up with reality
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment