This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

What will patients sacrifice to get 24/7 access?

  • Print
  • 7
  • Rate
  • Save

The Conservative candidate for Witney has recently pledged that his party would meet a predicted £8 billion funding gap for the NHS over the next 5 years. He recently met a fellow GP in his constituency to discuss the state of general practice. It appears that this funding will inevitably be swallowed up by the health convenience agenda and the ideological principle that he and other members of the public should be able to have access to ‘routine’ GP and other health services seven days a week.

He said to my colleague: ‘But if your child has a cough or earache, what’s wrong with wanting them seen immediately? Anyone would want that.’

And perhaps he has a point. But as a doctor I can see the flaw in his argument - it’s a waste of resources to see what mostly turn out to be self-limiting illnesses early on in their course. Sooner is not always better; it can sometimes take time to work out if a condition needs intervention.

The question also raises other issues. As general practitioners are paid per head of each registered patient, in addition to top up performance-related pay, it means that if every single one of our patients came to see us within the first 24 hours of having symptoms of an earache or upper respiratory tract infection, we would be completely inundated.

We would also be paid exactly the same amount of global pay. In all likelihood our performance-related pay such as the QOF, enhanced services and CCG-funded schemes would suffer as we would be so busy seeing acute minor illnesses.

My colleague made an important point to his MP. The issue is not just that what he thinks is unreasonable from a medical point of view, or from a GP workload point of view, but more essentially from the an opportunity cost point of view. Conceivably general practice could provide the public with more and more access, but without increased funding and staff to provide that access, then something else will have to give.

The implication, or rather the imperative, is that instead of promising increased access to general practice - which seems to be the default setting of many politicians - they should be asking voters: ‘What would you be prepared to give up for increased access to general practice?’

I have a few suggestions: offering free prescriptions for children; maintaining current taxation rates (to pay for more doctors and nurses); protecting the freedom to not turn up to a booked appointment without facing a financial penalty.

Something will surely have to give if the convenience agenda continues to be pursued. Let’s hope it’s not general practice itself.

Dr Samir Dawlatly is a former secretary of the RCGP’s adolescent health group and a GP in Birmingham

Rate this blog  (3.62 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 (7)

  • One of the problems with all of this is that UK society has lost the reference points for significant illness. We no longer have young friends and family inflicted, dying or dead with TB, Polio, Diptheria etc etc. Even strokes and MIs are no longer that common. So having a cough is now a major illness and pandering to this is just cost ineffective lunacy

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Patient's don't want to sacrifice anything - that's the problem. They want US to sacrifice our family lives, our incomes and our sanity.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I would happily sacrifice Jeremy Hunt and all other politicians!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 7 day imposition will collapse GP services overnight. I know i'll resign and am sure my whole practice will hand back the contract if this were to happen. Its obvious we are struggling to provide a 5 days service, 7 day service and 8-8 is a non starter. Why aren't the politicians listening.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Try working in North America if you think Brits like seeing GPs or going to hospitam with minor illnesses.
    on a saturday out of 40 patients 30 will come with an urti several of them will have had them for only an hour!!
    Ha ha makes you realise that in general the British public are comparatively robust and sensible.. by modern standards anyway.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • They have 24/7 access already - fact.
    Minor ailments do not need 24/7 access, deal with it and remedy yourself.
    Now even Superdrugs offers a virtual doctors appointment and prescription! Everyone else is trying to do a GPs job and get that Casualty/Holby City thrill it seems. You wouldn't see a technician or "assistant" trying to be solicitor or accountant would you? But, here's the spade Conservatives - dig a hole.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It is the headline, access to GPs. Unfortunately Dr Dawlatly it is not that simple. it is an illusion that people with minor illnesses bother GPs, of course it varies according to demographics, still not everyone with minor illnesses bother their GP. You as a GP know that the child with cough has minor illnesses, but how do the parents know if it is the firts time, once they get some idea they dont disturb the doctor or see the doctor sooner when their child is probne to otitis media and advised by ent consultant to get treatment sooner.

    Unfortunately MPs end up seeing the wrong Gps to get a real picture of what happens in NHS, the defensive answer and blamingb patients doesnt help at all..... so please tell ur friend it was a missed opportunity

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

  • Print
  • 7
  • Rate
  • Save