This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

A faulty production line

RCGP warning over plans to bring back 48-hour target for GP appointments

RCGP has put out a warning to MPs not to bring back the 48-hour GP appointment target, because it will deepen the crisis in general practice and endanger patients.

In a statement, RCGP chair Dr Maureen Baker warned that a return of the policy, which was scrapped in June 2010, would deepen the crisis in general practice and even endanger patient safety.

The Labour Party announced last week that it wants to bring back the target guaranteeing patients get to see a GP within 48 hours of requesting an appointment. But the proposal was an ‘ill-thought out, knee jerk’ reaction, said Dr Baker.

Pre-empting a scheduled opposition debate on A&E in the House of Commons this afternoon, she said: ‘The proposal to bring back the 48-hour target for GPs is an ill-thought out, knee-jerk response to a long-term problem - which is the profound crisis in the NHS caused by the chronic under-funding of general practice.’

‘Bringing back the 48-hour target for GP appointments will only make a bad situation worse by transferring more pressure onto general practice - at a time when it is in crisis - which could have a profound impact on the safety of patient care.’

Click here to read Dr Maureen Baker’s full response to the proposal

Speaking in Parliament last week, Labour’s shadow health secretary Andy Burnham said the target could be put before the House of Commons for a vote at an opposition day debate on A&E which is taking place today.

But Dr Baker said the target, which had been introduced by the previous Labour Government, however well-intended, had upset the running of general practice.

She said: ‘We always felt that the 48-hour target introduced by the previous Labour government, whilst well intentioned, distorted the smooth-running of general practice. GP access is extremely important but if you prioritise that over everything else, other services suffer and patients often end up worse off.’

Mr Burnham’s press office said a vote on the target was ‘under consideration’ for today’s debate.

Readers' comments (5)

  • They can re-jig things as much as they like. Until there is more funding for more doctors, all of this is a waste of time.

    Additionally, it increases the priority of trivial / self limiting illness that would otherwise self-resolve.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Dont be too hard on the poor man- this is the quickest and most effective change which would result in increased A+E attendences.
    They just dont understand.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • How many of these patients had real emergency.
    My personal experience over 35 years has been that most of the out of hours and night calls are for trivia or self limiting illnesses.What a waste of Doctors time and resourses

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What about the non-trivial conditions that rapidly deteriorate or serious illnesses? 48 hours is too long when you need a gp fast. Perhaps it should be 24 hours or even 12 hours, and no excuses. Stop talking like you have spent your working life seeing nothing but trivia. It's demeaning and unhelpful.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • you have capacity for 120 patients in 48 hours & limited time for paperwork . If you receive 140 calls - what are you going to do - see patient in 5 minutes or reduce time on paperwork .

    If a workforce can not do a job in one week , how are they going to do this in 48 hours. Or Why not set target to 6 hours from a call as suggested above, or even better a 4 hour response.
    Where is the statistical evidence to back this ?

    OOH type GP surgeries would work best in day time. Triage them over the phone and give them an appointment if appropriate.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say