This site is intended for health professionals only
Tuesday 22 May 2012
Facebook Twiter Linkedin

GPs face GMC duty on ‘back to work’ drive

By Andrew McNicoll | 04 Oct 2011

Exclusive GPs are set to be required to encourage patients to go back to work as part of their responsibilities to the GMC, under changes to the regulator's core ethical guidance drafted with input from the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP).

A draft revised version of Good Medical Practice, presented to GMC Council last week, included a new duty ‘to encourage patients with long-term conditions to stay in, or return to, employment'.

The GMC told Pulse a submission from the DWP had fed into the draft document, amid fears from GPs over ‘pressure from Government' to enlist doctors in the coalition's benefit crackdown.

The controversial requirement comes as part of a raft of proposed changes in the first major review of Good Medical Practice for five years. But it has prompted outrage among GPs and debate among GMC Council members, who have demanded clarification on the change.

GMC officials said the proposal will be reworded ahead of a public consultation later this month, with the redraft likely to substitute ‘employment' for ‘meaningful activity'.

Niall Dickson, GMC chief executive, said the draft was based on ‘a lot of evidence that people having productive activity can be life-enhancing'.

He said: ‘We don't want to suggest doctors become policemen of the state. It has to be where it is in the patient's best interest that encouragement and support is given.'

But many GPs responded angrily to the proposal, claiming it ignored the complexities of getting patients into work and pressured doctors into putting the needs of the Government ahead of patients. Click here to join the debate in the Pulse forum.

Dr Rob Barnett, secretary of Liverpool LMC, said: ‘I'm a GP, not an employment adviser.'

'GPs have a responsibility to get patients as fit as possible and if that helps get them into work then that's great. However, I'm working in an area of high unemployment. It may be OK for the GMC in London to propose things like this but the reality here is that there are very few jobs around.'

Dr Margaret McCartney, a GP in Glasgow, said: ‘Work in general is good for people, but it is not right for everyone all the time. Doctors need to be quite clear on where our responsibilities are – it is patients first.'

'The reality for people who have complex and multiple chronic illnesses is not well represented in the literature to date. The evidence base for the GMC proposal doesn't really reflect the reality of frontline general practice.'

Dr John Hughes, secretary of Manchester LMC, said: ‘This has rather dubious wording. Work can be good for some patients but the GMC needs to recognise there is an appropriate time and an appropriate sort of work for some patients.

‘I'm wondering how much pressure the GMC has come under from the Government for this.'

The DWP said its submission had been drafted by Dame Carol Black, its work and health tsar, but was unable to provide a copy as Pulse went to press.

A DWP spokesperson said: 

‘The Department of Work and Pensions is supportive in principal of helping people who can work, get back into work.'

Additional duties for doctors

New requirements included in draft Good Medical Practice guidance

• To encourage patients to stay in, or return to, work

• To consider patients' religious, spiritual and cultural history

• To act as a mentor to less experienced colleagues

• To take ‘prompt action' against basic failings in care

• To ensure you or a named colleague retains responsibility for patients' continuity of care

• An explicit duty to be competent in providing care and performing other professional roles

A full draft for public consultation will be published on 17 October.

READERS' COMMENTS

Anonymous, Sessional/Locum GP,
04 Oct 2011
I would love to know how the GMC expect us as Gps to accomplish this, when there are limited employment opportunities in the area. Working with employer with basic guidance on return to work, adaptations etc is reasonable, especially if the employer does not have access to internal occupational health. However I do not see how this can be required given a poor support mechanism, and Job centres that tell their patients to 'go on to the sick'.
Average (3Votes)
Top
Simon Ruffle, GP Partner,
04 Oct 2011
Additional duties for doctors--and to fly! and create more than 168 hours in a week!
I hold the DOccMed I've seen the evidence and no doubt it is in the interest of the patient to discuss work but as it stands the GMC can have my (insert anatomical part) on a plate weekly for not following their 'Good Medical Practice' to the letter everytime.
I'd love to see the revised edition as 'Good Medical Practice accepting that you have less than 10 minutes per patient and a practice to run and a life.'
Average (2Votes)
Top
Anonymous, GP,
04 Oct 2011
GMC "good medical practice" guidelines seems to be make up as you go along.
How on earth do we do it except what we do (supposed to do now). The best option is to remove ability to certify for more than 4 weeks from GP and leave it to a an organization under aegis of Jobcentre which employs Occ health trained docs to assess and issue notes > 4 weeks. They should be able to have access to patients notes. This can be funded by Occ health tax on employers of 0.5% with a adjustement to their NI. We cant be patient`s advocates and their task master!
Average (0Votes)
Top
Daryl Mullen, GP Partner,
04 Oct 2011
If anyone has a duty to get people back to work I'd have thought it would be the government, can we get them struck off if they fail?
Average (3Votes)
Top
Barbara Finchturner, Other healthcare professional,
04 Oct 2011
Remember - these are GUIDELINES not writ in stone. A GP's first duty is to his/her patients . . . anything else gets in line behind that!
Average (3Votes)
Top
Anonymous, GP Partner,
04 Oct 2011
the issue is not if the pt is fit for work - its more is there a suitable job,

and the problem in reality is that majority of employers would find it very difficult to employ someone with chronic illnesses,

and as an potential employee you cant really lie to your possible future employer about your health and healthcare needs.

pure politics this.
Average (5Votes)
Top
Nigel Dickson, GP Partner,
04 Oct 2011
The more crackpot the GMC gets the more I feel there needs to be a regulatory authority that we can report GMC to to investigate their behaviour? But I did think they were starting to get better after they removed me from their online listing as they investigated a vexacious complaint about me in which a patient's mother to offence at my remarks on a DWP DBD370(N) GPFR form that the young lad "hadn't bothered" to go attend his hospital outpatients. 9 months later my name was returned to online register and GMC's GP adviser chastised me for poor use of English language and suggested in future I might be more careful of my use of English and been better to have used the term "failed to attend" to avoid causing my patients distress. I obviously accepted my "telling off" but thought this was such a waste of everybody's time - complaint had been through our internal complaints proceedure and I'd apologised. Mother unhappy so went to Health Authority who chucked it out, mum then complained to Healthcare Commission and Ombudsman who felt complaint had no foundation hence mum complained to GMC. And now we are going to be in trouble for issuing sick notes to chaps who say they've got bad backs and can't go to work this week - or ever. This is bonkers. Are the GMC OK these days, couldn't somebody have a quiet word and make sure they aren't become a bit wacky? May be just GMC is going through rough patch at home - be a shame if nobody helped them and they all ended up being unable to work?
Average (5Votes)
Top
Vinci Ho, GP Partner,
04 Oct 2011
Rob was right . We are not employment advisor .
Once again , the government wants to turn GPs into 'terminators' to carry out dirty job for it. In this case , to shut the door to sickness benefits .
We are never the best persons to tell our patients off and get back to work as we have a close doctor - patient relationship and hence not ' independent ' enough . The best course of action is always consented NOT enforced . We respect our patient's choice . Imagine the defence lawyer turned against the suspect and joined the prosecution . It only happens in country with no democracy !
Average (3Votes)
Top
Anonymous, Sessional/Locum GP,
04 Oct 2011
about time, GP's in the UK are far too eager to pander to lazy patient's sicknote demands, my GP trainer in England would maintain it is not "our problem" if the patient is seeking a sicknote, which should just be provided. then UK GP's cry about the pathetic economy and losing pensions.
Average (1Vote)
Top
Anonymous, GP Partner,
04 Oct 2011
I am my patient's advocate - if the patient tells me they do not fell well enough to return to work then it is my job to support them. Getting back to work is a good idea but it is already taken for granted that I and the patient both want that. Putting up rules, guidelines and targets wont help. How long before there is a QoF target for minimising sick notes. If the patient thinks of me as someone working for the govt/ DWP then I will lose their trust in all other consultations and the Dremoticonatient trust will be damaged and will not be easily repaired.

ps - if the govt is going to steal my pension, why do they think I will be willing to do their dirty work for them for the rest of my working life.

pps Dear BMA/GPC - I want a ballot on GP industrial action that does not affect acute patient care.
Average (0Votes)
Top
Anonymous, GP Partner,
05 Oct 2011
I have done this in my first year of GP life , ended up withany complaints to pct , as usual patient put complaint not to say i asked them to go back to work but about my behaviour. And we all know when it comes to doctor vs patient, patient is always right, last thing instead of any encouragent i was warned by my pct.
Average (0Votes)
Top
Robert Mitchell, GP Partner,
05 Oct 2011
With this extra pressure, clearly from DWP, and the government, as well as the recent Channel 4 asking for the GMC to do something about "Bad Doctors", Can I ask who pays the GMC?
Average (0Votes)
Top
Anonymous, Salaried GP,
05 Oct 2011
With ref to that Channel 4 programme on 'bad doctors'- that was about 3 GP's out of 40,000. How unbalanced reporting is that!!!
I am the patients advocate, not the governments, and my responsibility is to my patient not DWP! The GMC need to think very carefully about introducing this concept into GMP as this way beyond their remit!
Average (0Votes)
Top
Peter Kemp, Other healthcare professional,
07 Oct 2011
Because these changes look like a pointless and gratuitous exercise, i.e., I think most doctors and patients do everything they can together to keep a patient's employment or help them to do more - the motivation for this change is suspect. As the changes are only superficially to do with whether patients work or not their purpose appears to be political: Enlist doctors in a government strategy of vilifying the sick and disabled. It's a slick move. Once doctors are 'officially' labelling sick people as malingerers then even more swingeing measures against them will be 'justified'.
Average (0Votes)
Top
Anonymous, Practice Manager,
07 Oct 2011
You can advise patiets that working is good for their general well being till you are blue in the face but that will not get people to go back to /find work. But if they do not it is a problem for the govt to sort out. GPs are not employment agencies. There needs to be a cultural shift so that working and taking care of self and family is the norm for everyone GPs simply cannot be expected to bring that about.
Average (0Votes)
Top
Julian Hall, GP Partner,
13 Oct 2011
GP's are not occupational health physicians. I hold the DOccMed and definitely advocate patient's with long term illness and associated sick leave being re-introduced into the work place. However, most Gp's do not have the resources, experience, knowledge or time to do take on this responsibilty. The Faculty of Occupational Medicine clearly state in their ethical guidance that a GP should not act as both GP and OHP to their patient due to the conflict in interest and lack of objectivity. Those in ivory towers at the GMC clearly have spent no time either in general practice or occupational medicine when dreaming up these ridiculous guidelines. It seems their motive is biased by the governments agenda to reduce unemployment and stabilise the economy-these issues are not our problem as GP's and the GMC have no business shoving it down our throats.
Average (0Votes)
Top

ADD YOUR COMMENTS

Please note You must be a registered user of PulseToday and logged in to add comments. Opinions expressed below are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of PulseToday. Comments are considered in the public domain and may be used in future Pulse coverage. We accept no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for the accuracy or the content of member comments.

Comment*

You must be logged in to add a comment.Clickhere to login.

POLL

Are GPs ordering too many lab tests?Read the full story here

SIGN UP FOR EMAIL NEWSLETTERS

Keep up-to-date with the latest changes to the NHS, CPD and clinical guidelines. Sign up below or find out more.