Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Forget the spin - here’s what we know about the out-of-hours plan so far

  • Print
  • Comments (25)
  • Save

From the Daily Mail front page on Tuesday to the high drama of an emergency debate at LMCs conference on Friday, there was only story in general practice last week – the health secretary’s bid to make GPs once again responsible for out-of-hours care.

It’s a suggestion which has predictably stirred up a powerful reaction from GPs. ‘Over my dead body’, one LMC representative declared, and that seems to be the consensus of the profession as a whole; the survey from Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire LMC which we report this morning found that more than 60% of grassroots GPs would consider quitting over the proposals.

But running amid all the anger, spin and hyperbole last week was a frustrating sense that GPs, patients and the Department of Health were arguing at cross purposes, confusing provision with responsibility, responsibility with commissioning and so forth.

So, as the dust settles on a frenetic week and GPs start to try and get their heads around how their jobs will actually change, if at all, here’s my attempt at a quick bullet-point summary - what we know so far, and what we don’t.

- - - - - 

1) First off, Jeremy Hunt is serious about making a real, significant change. There has been the suggestion from some quarters that the row over A&E attendances and out-of-hours has been blown out of all proportion and is simply an attempt to score some cheap headlines by blaming a capacity crisis on GPs.  That doesn’t seem to be the case. The careful build-up to Mr Hunt’s much-trailed speech at the King’s Fund – plus the meat of the speech itself – suggests the headlines are rooted in policy.

2) We’re not talking about provision. Much of GPs’ instinctive antipathy to the idea of having anything to do with out-of-hours is based on the muscle memory of weekends spent on call and peering at door numbers at 3am in the morning. This is explicitly not what is on the cards – NHS England are very clear that ‘no one is suggesting that GPs go back to personally being on call evenings and weekends’.

3) But we’re not just talking about GPs being responsible for out-of-hours care through CCGs, either. In the emergency debate on Friday, GPC chair Dr Laurence Buckman urged GPs to cut through the anti-GP spin and focus on what Jeremy Hunt had actually said. He then suggested that based on his speech at the King’s Fund, Mr Hunt could in fact plausibly be talking about GPs exercising their new-found commissioning power, through their existing membership of CCGs, and that would be that.

Based on Mr Hunt’s speech you could, if you were an optimistic sort, just about come to that conclusion. But in his response to the first question after his speech – asked by Pulse reporter Sofia Lind – Mr Hunt was explicit that the ‘contract needs to change’ to ensure GPs ‘sign off that they are happy with out-of-hours care’. Rewriting the contract seems to go much further than simply asking GPs to fulfil their existing CCG responsibilities.

4) Those contract changes are coming sooner rather than later. The Department of Health is keeping schtum and refusing to provide any details at all about how Mr Hunt’s lofty pronouncements will be engineered in practice, but NHS England was at least a little more forthcoming on the timing.

Dr Mike Bewick, deputy director for primary care at NHS England, told us today that the changes will ‘mean an opportunity for GPs to develop the more integrated care that we all know is central to ensuring balanced, sustainable NHS services’. And he added: ‘We look forward to working with the GPC during contract negotiations for 2014/15 which should bring us closer to this shared goal’.

5) The GPC will have plenty of discretion in how it handles those negotations, thanks to some careful framing of the emergency debate at the LMCs conference on Friday. Representatives had plenty of opportunity to vent, but little chance – despite spirited attempts from the floor – to actually shape how the GPC will respond. It remains the policy of the conference – and thus the GPC – that GPs do not accept out-of-hours responsibility. But beyond that negotatiors have not been tied to any specific negotiating position.

- - - - - 

Where does that leave us? Well, it seems likely, then, that there will be some significant change to GPs’ contractual responsibilities to make them more accountable for out-of-hours cover in their area, over and above their existing CCG commitments but stopping far short of actually providing that cover themselves.

Obviously GPs wanting to know how their job will change are currently left with more questions than answers. How will the contract change? What levers will GPs be given to improve out-of-hours care? How can a practice be held contractually responsible if care is commissioned at a CCG level? And will there be any more resource to cover the extra work involved?

Given that Jeremy Hunt has now signalled a change in policy, it’s to be hoped that someone at the Department of Health has an idea of the details, even if they’re keeping them secret for now. More will no doubt emerge in the coming months – and then hopefully we can start having a real debate about the changes which are actually proposed, and what they will mean for practices and patients.

Steve Nowottny is the editor of Pulse. You can follow him on Twitter @stevenowottny.

Readers' comments (25)

  • But haven't gps already taken back resoponsibility for out hours by their membership of CCGs?!!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Isn't it simply a case of the DoH saying we tried and screwed it up so you had better do it?

    By the way does Jeremy Hunt or the DoH have any real understanding of the difference between provision and commissioning and what's more does the public care?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The danger is that we will posture and refuse to do it but at the end of the day these people are our patients and the Gov knows that we will not fail them so at the end of the day we will end up doing what they want us to do because they have us hostage over our patients

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Cobblers

    And by those comments Sharon you encapsulate what may be a majority GP view about patients.

    Good luck with that view for you are truly madly deeply right royally stuffed.

    Me, I will be off at the slightest hint that I might have to either do or even sign to say I am happy (read legally responsible) for OOH Care.

    How many resignations would it take to make GP unstable and have the whole rotten edifice come crashing down around Mr. Hunt’s ears in the year before an election? I don’t know but we may find out.

    We are in interesting times are we not?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Would Sharon work for nothing for her patients and do 80 hours plus a week ? Question really is, at what point is enough, enough ? I will never go back to the torture of the day night job and 80 hour weekends. Besides, are we not entitled to a reasonable life ? Are GPs not allowed rest ? How many hours should we work ?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    From a point of politics , the credibility of this government is rapidly declining in all aspects . Look at the number of U turns as evidences . One thing they really could not afford to U turn was the Health and Social Care Bill . Remember the reactions of various 'key' politicians at the moment when it was finally passed in House of Commons. But the price was high . At least Lansley was sacrificed.
    Agent Hunt was then brought in with a specifoic directives and assignment .Reputation is one thing but more importantly , some spins were necessary to tell the public the Bill was the 'right' thing to pass . NHS England is the 'good' guy.
    Like all action hero movies , you also need a villain to match the good guy. Here you go , the monster or demon was called GP .
    Agent Hunt with all his connections in the media managed to grab the headlines trying to convince the public what the villain had done to A/E. I doubted that agent Hunt even believed what he actually said was the truth . But he did not care as this is exactly how a 'good ' politician behaves.
    It is important to remind ourselves that agent Hunt knew exactly how we would react before those words came out of his mouth.
    The endpoint of winning or losing is how many people in the public had been 'converted' and convinced of the 'crime of the villain'.
    Yes , CCGs are GPs and they are already responsible for OOH but how many people in the public clearly know about this rather complicated concept ?
    Hence , NHS England can still proudly move forward and ' save the day' by simply getting GPs to sign the agreement that they are happy with the OOH arrangements . This is the primary endpoint success.
    The secondary endpoint success will be a bonus when the villain sat down and negotiate . If the villain, for some reasons ,confessed and agreed real time changes in OOH , agent Hunt is on his way up promotion .
    There is a lot to think about , my fellow comrades in GPC..........

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • should the BMA look at renegotiating the salaried model contract in view of the fact that we will now be expected to carry on with out of hours commitments. would that be at this stage or when the proposals became embeded in law?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The only point of giving us back individual responsibility is to have the powers to force us to work the sessions when the budget proves inadequate in future, or demand spirals further.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Excellent and helpful, best analysis to date that I have come across

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Not very analytical, not very critical, not very well thought through, not a good piece of journalism....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page50 results per page

Have your say

  • Print
  • Comments (25)
  • Save