This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

Gold, incentives and meh

Of course GPs in A&E won't improve access

  • Print
  • Comments (16)
  • Rate
  • Save

Ah, don’t you just love it when that happens? ‘Patients will be able to see a GP "in every A&E" by next winter, says NHS boss’ v ‘GP appointment waiting times to be published under new access drive’.

Glorious. Both statements from the same department, each deeply flawed and the one at odds with the other.

So. The GP in every A&E thing. I really don’t think you need me to highlight the issues. But just in case: off the top of my head, we have the potentially eye-watering defence subs, the funding of £100m not buying that much for that long, the possible inadvertent encouragement of patients to attend A&E (to see a GP, yippee!) and the fact that a more logical but equally ambitious aspiration would actually be to have a general practitioner in every general practice.

And the GP appointment publication thing? Ho hum. For one thing, appointment access is a very complex issue - and you can bet that whatever instrument they end up using to measure it will be about as blunt as the weapon they beat us over the head with when that data is misappropriated by the likes of the CQC.

And for another, while I’m not even slightly surprised that NHS England’s line on the new investment is, ‘...it’s reasonable to expect, on the back of that, improved access,’ I don’t even slightly agree. That funding was needed just to cope with the workload dump, and I am running out of time, energy, will and space to magic up appointments. It might get us off our knees, but we’ll still be barely mobile.

Which leaves us with that delicious contradiction. Just to savour the absurdity of it, I would absolutely love to work in my local A&E just to triage one of my own patients back to an appointment with me at my own surgery which he won’t get because I’m triaging patients like him at A&E who are there because they can’t get an appointment with me.

Hilarious, but infuriating, too. By the time you read this blog, the typo made by Pulse about this ‘GP streaming’ will have been corrected. Shame. Because I think they had it right first time. GPs will be steaming, and so will their patients.

Dr Tony Copperfield is a GP in Essex. You can follow him on Twitter @DocCopperfield

Rate this blog  (4.65 average user rating)

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Readers' comments (16)

  • Service users have a huge role in NHS collapse.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • to be honest its not about them vs us--neither hospital vs GP or Patient Vs Drs. Its about 1st world country giving 3rd world country service to patients.
    Why do we need GP's in AED. And why if someone has come to AED be refused Rx and sent back to GP when GP surgery is absolutely full and no appointments available.
    Why is the patient supposed to know if his left arm pain is muscular or heart attack or is a collapse due to ACS or NSTEMI or just a simple collapse. They are not medically educated and some are barely educated.
    We should be able to provide for them wherever they present, AED or OOH or GP and guide them appropriately after careful history taking and examination and necessary examination.
    Number of acute illness sent back from AED to gp as it appeared on simple triaging as nothing to worry about only turning out to be much more complex later in the day. Even 1 patient harmed is too many harmed.
    Provide more AED's rather than closing them. Get more staff drs and nurse both in 2ndry care and Community care. It will cost but that is bound to happen as we are saving more and more people and making their medical more and more complex due to this survival and ageing population and newer knowledge of SIRS/ACS/NSTEMI etc etc which were not even heard of in the past etc.
    No excuse for not funding both 2ndry and primary care and then blaming everyone from patients to Health care providers but the politicians who control the finance

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What A&E needs is more SHO and Registrars, not more GP's who worked in primary care being asked to replace SHOs and registrars( if they lucky to be found anywhere or forced to become like part of GP training). Trying to move GPs to A&E( I would personally never volunteer) exposed to high risk patients without joys of all blood tests etc which is indeed a risky professional proposition. If investigations are done it also encourages the patient behaviour to go to A&E expectation of all investigations in one day instead of seeing own GP. This creates false demand. So good luck to the GP's who work in A&E. Was in my own surgery where a board stated a excellent GP for leaving for Australia, not A&E.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Completely agree with Sandy. we need more Drs and Nurses in AED and more beds in Hospital and more Drs and Nurses in Hospital as exemplified during winter trolley waiting time. Why make GP's take risks without investigations backing them to make some difficult acute decisions.
    and we need more GP's and Practice Nurses to decrease the pressure and improve patient access.
    This is all going to cost money no matter how you put it.
    Ultimately it is job of politicians to provide adequate finance to employ adequate workforce to be able to safely do their work and for patient safety which leads to safe Clinicians

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Until there is a financial cost to attending A&E and GP, there will always be too great demand and too little resource.

    Increasing resources is of course good - but will also mean more people will get things seen since the time lost is lowered.

    A system closer to that of Ireland where there are charges for accessing healthcare - albeit heavily subsidised - would help convince the family of 5 with the sniffles that there is no need to book an hour with the GP for the self-limiting illness.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Another side to this is that GP's are voting with their patients feet, so to speak.
    Up and down the country more and more GP's are being more resilient and saying enough is enough, and directing more patients to walk in centres or casualty, as they're overwhelmed by their workloads of over 10-11 hour days.

    We used to take pride in providing comprehensive continuity of care. But it's no longer possible.
    Certainly NHSE's drive is towards fragmentation of care, and getting numbers of patients seen by any clinicians possible.

    It's about quantity of care and no longer quality of care.

    We also need to stand strong and repeatedly tell patients "we're not an emergency service, go to casualty", once our appointments are taken.

    It remains to be seen how strongly the BMA will push the idea of a maximum daily workload for a full time GP, and whether hair shirted and cardie wearing GP's will accept this.

    I hope they will, even if it means it is detrimental to patient care. It'll be positive for the GP's health. It might mean some of these GP's will have longer careers, and NHSE can't complain they weren't warned, as A&E is overrun with even more of what were Primary care patients.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say

  • Print
  • Comments (16)
  • Rate
  • Save

From: Copperfield

Dr Tony Copperfield is a jobbing GP in Essex with more than a few chips on his shoulder