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

Report this comment to a moderator

Please fill in the form below if you think a comment is unsuitable. Your comments will be sent to our moderator for review.

Report comment to moderator

Required fields.

Headline

Seven-day GP access pioneer hails cut in unnecessary A&E attendance

Comment

Unfortunately the government is not interested in investing in primary care, they are interested in funding schemes like these. Where funding is used to prove a case for access, with spurious claims for success, which will then become a point of contention that if GPs do not provide this they are letting their patients down and not avoiding A&E attendances as a professional failure! I'm sure at the end of this study you will be able to compare the number of new appointments and the reduction of A&E attendances and the cost of each attendance at practice compared to the reduction of relatively low cost A&E attendances, which you would have to presume as they were 'unneccessary' led to no admissions, and that this has therefore affected nothing costwise apart from minimal savings at the trust end (for which they will save money by not employing A&E doctors as GPs are able to do the work) and not significantly reducing the taxpayers costs. With no empirical figures this would seem like a, neccesarily massive, increase in funding to GPs (that this government is ideologically against wider) for somewhat limited returns in terms of spend in secondary A&E care. I think the public (and the government) would want more investment in acute services than money for access 24/7 into GPs pockets to provide something they could provide anyway without huge investment. The case may be put simpler that this could easily be achieved with changes in Practice opening hours rather than an investment in 24/7 primary care, as everything mentioned in this article could be easily acheived in that way! please be aware of how any 'evidence' you produce may be used, and define very clearly causality, along with the role and level of funding to avoid the results being open to use spuriously for other agendas. I suggest this information may be collected for other purposes, as can be seen from the generalisations inferred in the article above, and maybe used for the crafting of a stick not the cultivation of a carrot.

Posted date

25 Apr 2014

Posted time

3:21pm

required
required
required