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

No financial compensation for GPs affected by performers list delays

GPs who have been left unable to work for months due to delays in Capita’s performers list registration processes should not expect compensation for lost earnings, the Department of Health has said.

Citing NHS England guidance, health minister David Mowat said that it was ‘vital’ the process allowed time to check applicants had provided sufficient evidence.

He added that completing some applications properly can take ‘a number of months’ - though NHS England specifies GPs should allow 12 weeks to complete performers list registration.

It comes as Pulse revealed last month that GPs who have been waiting six months or more have approached the BMA to discuss claiming compensation for loss of earnings.

The delayed registration of qualified clinicians is the latest chapter in the disruption for GPs, dentists, opticians and pharmacists since Capita took on the contract for primary care support services in England.

In response to a written question regarding delays for dentists on joining the performers list – which NHS England confirmed to Pulse apply equally to GPs – Mr Mowat said: ‘NHS England’s standing guidance… does not include any expectation of, or provision for, compensation if an application takes more than 12 weeks.

‘The Performers List safeguards are important and are there for the protection of the public.

‘Therefore, it is vital that Primary Care Support England [Capita] and NHS England ensure each application provides the right evidence to enable it to be considered. For some applications it can take a number of months to properly complete these checks.’

The GPC has been calling for compensation for the disruption Capita have caused since May the the Government has told Capita to ‘consider’ it.

But Mr Mowat's response does add that NHS England is ‘evaluating all consequences’ of the current delays in performers list applications.

Last year NHS England said that the major support services provided by Capita would be ‘returned to acceptable levels’ by April 2017.

NHS England and Capita both declined to comment.

Support services disruption

Practices have been contending with significant disruption to payments, pensions, supplies and patient notes since Capita began overhauling services in March last year.

At the end of last year, the GPC warned that the service was still a ‘chaotic mess’ but practices have yet to be compensated for the disruption and additional workload they have suffered.

In January, NHS England pledged that ‘significant improvements’ to general practice support services will be completed by April, as it seeks to return the services it outsourced last year to ‘acceptable’ levels.

But by then practices will have endured more than year of disruption, after Capita took over as NHS England’s national provider of primary care support in September 2015.

The move followed an NHS England cost-cutting drive where it slashed its £100m-a-year support services budget by 40% and has resulted in huge backlogs of patient records movement, delays registering new GPs and missed payments

Readers' comments (17)

  • Carry on HMG treat the medical proffession with contempt,just dont expect to recruit and retain with this performance.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been moderated.

  • Cobblers

    "The Performers List safeguards are important and are there for the protection of the public".

    Evidence please?

    There is a performer's list - the GMC list of Registered Practitioners.

    The rest is just flummery. Why is it needed at all?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • oh just sue them..

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Its not their decision whether compensation is payable or not.... it is a legal finding as to whether or not compensation should be due..... of course they will say they are not liable....Id sue

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Best if done through the bma

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Just Your Average Joe

    'health minister David Mowat said that it was ‘vital’ the process allowed time to check applicants had provided sufficient evidence'

    - Yes - 12 weeks which is far more than the process took before the DOH decided to farm it out to a private company Capita which has a history of incompetence and delays - and somehow (NO evidence of bribery or back handers to politicians or civil servants proven)got awarded this multimillion pound contract, which they are milking dry for any semblance of profit, leaving very little money and no trained staff to do the job they have been contracted to do in a meaningful time period due to incompetence and lack of any checks or penalties.

    The trained puppet standing in for the (I was not sacked by Mrs May but got reinstated JH - who is mysteriously absent recently)can't stand up and say - yes we are to blame for this debacle - please sue us for hundreds or thousands in cumulative lost earnings from all the GPs suffering due to their poor decision to give Capita the contract.



    The GPs in question all hols GMC registration and have passed the RCGP training and exams - hence by default are safe to work.

    Sack Capita and recoup all the 100 million and spend on patient care - leaving the GMC to hold the register of who is entitled to work - without pointless bureaucracy and duplication.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been moderated.

  • Why does it take 3/12 or more to do a check? I'd like to know what is involved in the performer's list check and I'd bet everything in it can be done within a week if done properly

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Just Your Average Joe

    100% correct

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Healthy Cynic

    Capita couldn't organise a lively party in a licensed establishment. Simply not fit for purpose. Perhaps they could use that as their strapline:

    "Capita: Simply not fit for purpose"

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Could there be an argument that this is unlawful 'restraint of trade'?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say

IMPORTANT: On Wednesday 7 December 2016, we implemented a new log in system, and if you have not updated your details you may experience difficulties logging in. Update your details here. Only GMC-registered doctors are able to comment on this site.