Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 12th October 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Open all-hours plan for doctors



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 03 February 2008
THOUSANDS of Scots will gain access to their GP at evenings and weekends under a groundbreaking deal close to being signed by doctors' leaders and the Government.
Ministers have offered Scottish family doctors an extra £16m to help cover the cost of out-of-hours opening but have been accused of "blackmail" after warning GPs they will take an effective pay cut of £6,000 each if they refuse.

The deal is aimed
primarily at helping patients whose work makes it difficult for them to get to their GP during normal working hours. Ministers hope the move will also reduce pressure on A&E wards and the telephone service NHS 24.

The British Medical Association in Scotland has been negotiating the deal with Health Minister Nicola Sturgeon and is now putting the terms to individual GPs.

It is likely most GP practices in Scotland, particularly those in towns and cities, will be forced to open their doors at night and weekends as a result.

The move has been welcomed by patients groups and workers, who say it will enable more people to get to the doctor without losing valuable working time.

But many doctors will enter reluctantly into the deal, if they accept it at all, furious at what they consider "blackmail" by politicians.

Last night a British Medical Association insider admitted: "The status quo is not an option. The BMA is in talks about being more flexible and GPs are willing to be flexible. But if GPs don't extend their opening hours they are going to lose money."

Dr Peter Shishodia, medical secretary of the Lothian Local Medical Committee, said: "GPs are being bullied into this. But if they are forced to do it, most will do it.

"However there are a number of concerns, for example the personal safety of a GP working alone in the evening and the matter of having to persuade reception staff to work in the evening and weekends.

"It may also mean there are fewer appointments available during the day. And if patients using the extended hours service need tests, they will have to come back for them to be done on another day because staff and some facilities won't be available."

Alan McDevitt, medical secretary of the Glasgow Local Medical Committee, said: "If we are able to discuss this rationally, I think most GPs would extend their opening hours.

"But many GPs are incensed about the proposal because the government is saying it wants more for the same money, or they will make things worse, which is blackmail. The Government does not care about whether we can offer a good service or whether this is going to do anything useful for people."

Anne Ritchie, a practice manager at an Edinburgh-based surgery said: "GPs will have no choice but to extend their opening hours. The BMA should have dug its heels in to avoid this situation."

GP surgery hours are being extended to meet patient need so that people do not have to take time off work to go to a doctor.

This means the average practice would open for around three extra hours a week, and it would be up to doctors themselves to determine on which days.

The BMA has argued that the move is impractical because the people most likely to need a doctor are the elderly, the unemployed and long-term sick who can easily be seen during the working week.

However it has no choice but to accept the government's proposals because it is committed to "flexible" patient care and has been given no alternative in its contract.

The move also comes amid growing criticism about GP pay. The average salary for a Scottish GP has risen to £90,619 under a new contract that also allowed them to opt out of providing round-the-clock care.

Last night Jean Turner, executive director of the Scotland Patients' Association, said doctors simply had to become more flexible to meet the needs of their patients.

"Illness does not just happen between the hours of nine and five. There are always going to be emergencies. I welcome this proposal because people do need a more flexible service. Extending doctors' hours has got to be good for patients."

Andrew Watson, spokesman for the Federation of Small Businesses, said the move would allow professionals the chance to access health care without affecting their working day.

A spokeswoman for the Scottish Government said it wanted to see GPs providing extended hours.

"A package of £9.5m extra has been identified for this purpose. Government officials wrote to BMA Scotland on January 24 setting out details and they are currently considering this letter," she said.



The full article contains 787 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 02 February 2008 9:37 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Health of the NHS
 
1

subrosa,

03/02/2008 00:40:21
'Most people who want to see a doctor are the elderly, the unemployed and the long term sick who can easily be seen during the working week'.

Aye right!

So the elderly haven't to take ill between the hours of 5pm and 9am? They've to wait a maximum of 16 hours for a doctor unless they phone NHS 24 or get someone to take them to an A & E which in my case is an hour's drive away.

High time doctors got off their perches and into the real world. Whilst I appreciate they do a job it's no more important than many other jobs. The BMA said when the new contracts were given by the labour party "We can't believe it, it was like taking candy from a baby". Good on you Nicola for ensuring they give a service worthy of this century.
2

Charles Linskaill,

.Edinburgh 03/02/2008 00:44:47
Well one thing for sure, the service is absolutely useless the way it is just now!

This can only be, 'good-news' for the majority of us, that don't or cant sit in our houses all day.

Maybe our elusive GP's will be elusive, 'no-more'.!!
3

,

03/02/2008 00:51:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

Charles Linskaill,

.Edinburgh 03/02/2008 00:51:32
1 subrosa,
What an excellent comment and one that I agree with you 101%.!!

Normally I would have more to say, but DYW has worn me out today...'Totally'!!
And it wasn't with..'fornication'. :-((
5

Pension Lost!,

Edinburgh 03/02/2008 00:59:08
Well said #1. Its high time someone took on the GP's after all they are paid £100,000 for doing a Monday to Friday 9 - 5 job now. No out of hours. Not a bad deal I would say

It's about time they got into the real world and patients got decemt access instead of waiting a week for an appointment. Well done Ms. Sturgeon for dealing with this.
6

Stuart W,

03/02/2008 03:23:10
Quote from article:
"This means the average practice would open for around three extra hours a week, and it would be up to doctors themselves to determine on which days."

Should this read "per day"? I can't see how opening three hours extra per week would change much.
7

A Better Way,

Edinburgh 03/02/2008 03:52:45
Another change that could not have possibly been achieved 12 months ago. The SNP Scottish Government brought this up in the early days and were lambasted on these forums, for even daring to raise the Question.

Well so much else has changed for the better that we are accepting these breakthroughs as just normal events. Yes Scotland these things are Normal events and services in other countries. You dont have to put up with the crap that was handed to you for fifty years and told to just be grateful for what London GAVE us.

It is Scotland Turn so lets get busy doing the best for our country. As Kennedy once said "ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country". Vote the Scottish Way and lets make a fine country that offers better opportunities for our future generations. Its Time for Scotland to determine its own right to a destiny where it decides what is good for us.
8

DrP,

Calgary, Canada 03/02/2008 04:58:38
The comments on this article are absolute nonsense.
If you're sick enough to see a doctor then you can take time off work. Of course there will be out of hours emergencies which must be cared for, but you have no right to ask a doctor to work evenings merely for your convenience.
When was the last time you consulted a lawyer in the evening, for any purpose?
I'm not a GP and I don't practise in UK, but at my age, and if I did, my response to the government would consist of two words. Don't you realise that many of us are around 60 and are planning to retire soon anyway? When there's a real doctor shortage such as looms in Canada, maybe government will regret it's bullying tactics!
9

SassyC,

Edinburgh 03/02/2008 06:15:38
Dr.P., your comments say a lot about your opinion of patients. Unlike Lawyers, Doctors work within the caring profession. The care sector does not just operate between the hours of 9-5. Most other people who work in this sector work unsociable hours - why should Doctors be any different?
Your arguement does not hold any clout - it is a selfish rant. Hopefully new graduate Doctors will be of a different frame of mind - enjoy your retirement Sir!
10

Artistwally,

Perth 03/02/2008 06:55:17
How about pointing the gun at the rich arrogant dentist now?
11

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 03/02/2008 07:40:13
Give docs the option.

er unsocial hours payment to the volunteers.

The thing is that I don't want to consult a doctor who doesn't want to be consulted.
12

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 03/02/2008 07:41:00
#12 Second sentence begins 'Offer'
13

AlastairEwen,

Calgary 03/02/2008 07:41:15
Funny - no one has yet complained about the difficulty of getting a hospital appointment out of hours. Is this the next target for Gordy Cyclops and his army of misguided, worried-well tossers who seem to think their health and well being is utterly dependent on getting to see a doctor after 5 o'clock.

1. Will this do anything to improve the health of the great unwashed?

2. Do bears defecate in the woods?

(Answers on the back of a five pound note to yours truly......)
14

donald,

glasgow 03/02/2008 08:22:13
It may suit the retired and unemployed, but whit aboot the workers?
15

toady,

UK 03/02/2008 08:22:20
10: I think you'll find it is the more recently graduated doctors who are the most opposed to a return to extra hours. The longer serving are used to the idea; newer graduates have a completely different business based outlook.

And the comments in the story about backup services are valid; patients may have to return to provide blood and urine samples etc, as these can't sit for long periods of time without being uplifted by hospital labs. Also, for security reasons, you'd have to have at least two reception staff on duty, so (if any can be persuaded) those costs plus running costs need to be factored in as well.

Evening opening hours would work better. Weekends would be difficult.
16

Non!!,

East Britain 03/02/2008 08:32:35
British doctors, and GPs in particular, are amongst the best paid in the world. The old philosophies of vocation and of patient care no matter what, which underpinned medicine in the past are largely gone for most doctors. For many it's just a 9 - 5 job now and a well paid one at that. Pity!!
17

Tayside,

Tayside 03/02/2008 08:46:48
The article on the Saturday morning surgery in Balfron says it all. The patient is a man in his seventies who just needed a repeat prescription. Any doctor who did Saturday morning surgeries for years knows they will see the same patients as during 'normal' hours for mainly the same kind of problems.
Don't be surprised if you phone for an appointment and are told the only one left is at 7am or 7.30pm. Just imagine an old person dependant on public transport coping with that in the middle of winter.
At the moment it is just three hours a week, just enough to annoy the GPs and reinstate the recruitment problems and not enough to radically change the patients lot.
18

Sybil,

Bath 03/02/2008 08:52:26
NEW HOURS... I am not very old...but I well remember when our local GP with the help of one other locum (occasionally) had surgery hours 8.30am -10am. 2-3pm and 6.7pm plus During the rest of the day and night ! he was visiting... yes they used to visit patients !! These were the days.... Yes he was overworked and underpaid...But he felt that it was an honour to be able to treat his patients. and on the whole they honoured him by not demanding treatment for imaginary illnesses...Yes Dr. deserve a goood rate of pay as does everyone. But they should be grateful for all the progress that has been made
19

MK1,

Borders 03/02/2008 09:54:48
Subrosa has hit the nail on the head. Whoever was resposnible for negotiating the GP contracts should hang their head in shame. It has had a crippling effect on the NHS. At the stroke of a pen it has cost the tax payer millions of pounds to establish an out of hours service. This should have come as no surprise. The the public will always need access to a GP 24/7, particulatly for young children, the elderly and infirm. Yes, we need to ensure that GP's are not overworked and properly remunerated, but that could have been tackled differently and with much more flexibility on their part. In my experience, GP's were always well respected in communities, but I fear that has diminshed in recent years. In my view this is all down to money and the way surgeries are run as profit making businesses. It's a well known fact that they make most of their money from the very young and the elderly and by undertaking lucrative, and yes worthwhile, preventative screening programmes. Prescription drugs are constanly changed to cheaper variations irrespective of side effects and consultations for some groups are not deemed as lucrative. Thankfully I rarely need a GP, but I know from the experience of family and friends how difficult it is to access a GP in our practice. You can wait up to 4/5 days and and have to be very assertive with the receptionist / gatekeepers. I am not a a political animal, but well done Nicola Sturgeon. However, you need to go much further with this one to redress the balance in favour of the patient.
20

Riley Hamish,

Edina 03/02/2008 10:00:00
PLEASE EXCUSE THE OFF-TOPIC COMMENT, BUT WE HAVE NO CHOICE WITH THIS RAG

WHY IS THEIR NO REFERENCE TO THE STORY ABOUT WENDY ALEXANDER IN THIS PAPER TODAY?
YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND STANCE HAS BECOME A TOTAL EMBARRASSMENT HOOTSMON.......OR ARE YOU ACTUALLY HAPPY THAT WE NEED FIND THE NEWS ELSWHERE.
SHAMEFUL PERFORMANCE, EDITORS.
21

,

03/02/2008 10:00:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
22

SassyC,

Edinburgh 03/02/2008 10:03:19
16: I am devastated! Here was I hoping that the new Graduate Doctors would be forward thinking people who would be interested in their patients welfare, actually listen to them and talk to them in a way that is understandable and non-judgemental, adopt an holistic approach to their well-being and now I find out that they have a business minded approach! Oh dear......
23

Alan Reid,

NZ 03/02/2008 10:19:35
More good moves by the SNP. AM, eat my shorts.
24

SassyC,

03/02/2008 10:29:05
14: Would this be the same Alistair Ewan - fully qualified Doctor and Dons fan working as anaesthetist? Shame on you Sir - talking about Patients like that!
25

JimboJimbo,

03/02/2008 10:32:29
1
26

JimboJimbo,

Ward 2.5 03/02/2008 10:32:48
Oh Diddums - the overpaid and seriously underworked 9-5 GPs (or should we say fat cats?)are now going to have to work for their £100K+. Much like the rest of us who are paid fair less. No mention of nurses who are expected to work shifts so that 24/7 cover is provided - they get paid significantly less yet still do the business! Our GPs have had it too good for too long. An interesting Radio 4 article last year where the BMA Chief Negotiator was interviewed - the BMA's plan was to hit the Government with an unrealistically high pay proposal on the basis that they (the BMA)could then walk backwards in negotaitions to achieve a reasonable deal. Unfortunately our Whitehall mandarins, who are not business savvy, fell for the ploy hook line and sinker and agreed the BMA's initial terms without any further negotiation. Says it all really!! Anyway apparently we have more junior doctors than jobs - the law of supply and demand should apply here - lower GPs salaries to a more realistic level, increase the hours and if they don't like it then there will be plenty more aspiring doctors in the queue behind them.
27

jockmctavish,

NE Scotland 03/02/2008 10:48:19
None of the GP's in my practice work from 9 till 5. 8 till 6 more like
28

Toast,

03/02/2008 11:05:43
Doctors now get paid serious money,between £100,000 ans £250,000,for that kind of cash a litte flexibility is required,why should I lose a days pay for an ear infection for example,the self employed always lose out,we don't take sick days like many employees.
29

Slippylizard,

Cold Rock 03/02/2008 11:48:13
No doubt we will have to fork out another £40,000 each to get them to do this. Get them to come back and have the flexibility the rest of us have to have in the real world.

No one else gets to moan all the time like Doctors and whilst they sometimes have a difficult job they don't half do well out of it.
30

Transparent?,

Scotland 03/02/2008 11:51:10
What happens to the NHS if GPs - instead - reduce their hours according to the threatened reduction in salary?

And how do the police cope with evening and week-end drunks using the surgery waiting rooms to sober up?
31

Patricia M,

03/02/2008 12:43:35
As doctor, i would be worried about junkies trying to get next fix, looking for drugs as well as drunks in surgeryand viloence that goes with it. As patient, i would be worried about same things. Where is money to cover security in surgeries at night? Will services be reduced to cover extra staff and reception staff doing extra hours who are willing to do those extra hours?
32

Patricia M,

03/02/2008 12:45:30
Are surgery practise managers going to be accountable in paying for those extras, thus reducing money to pay for treatments that are expensive anyway such as cancer drugs?
33

morris,

edinburgh 03/02/2008 12:49:10
The only down side I can see here is that you might get the duty doctor, rather than your personal GP,but provided that your notes take this on board, then there should NOT be a problem.In a group surgery where there are(e.g) ten general practitioners then 24 hour coverage should be well possible,and provided the Doctors themselves and staff can agree,then I see no problem. Who says doctors must be 9 to 5 anyway? Maladies are certainly not!
34

morris,

edinburgh 03/02/2008 12:56:15
32

Perhaps entry by secure door controlled by receptionist or yourself might be neccessary? An intercom/ closed circuit tv system is not that expensive these days and some surgeries have them anyway. The police would certainly have to be responsive or patients will not attend for fear of assualt etc and no doubt some of the lady GPs would be reluctant to work unsocial hours. This certainly will require further tinkering and input as the position becomes clearer. I share your concerns but I am optimistic,and I am confident that the SNP will deal with any teething problems (or is that Dentists)which may occur.
35

Enoughis Enough,

Glasgow 03/02/2008 13:06:14
How many hours a week do you lot think a GP should work?
50 hours 60 hours??

Would you let somebody deal with your health problems who is tired and stressed out?

The reason the new contract came about in 2004 was to address a crisis in recruitment and retention in Primary Care. This was the result of the retirement of a cohort of GPs many from S Asia who started in the 60s. In addition the ever increasing demand from the public to be seen as "emergencies" after 6pm meant GPs covering their patients 24/7 became unsustainable. It was no surprise to learn that GPs had one of the highest rates of divorce, suicide and alcohol misuse. Many had sacrificed there well being and those of their family members for their "vocation".

More than 40% of new GPs are young women, they will quit in their droves and do locum work.

In addition many like myself had endured years of working 100+ hours or more as a junior doctor for risible renumeration and a real threat to my own mental health. Yet all I see on these fora is the bitter bile of people who have the gall to lecture me about greed and laziness. In my first 5 years of work I probably put more hours in than a nurse does in her first 15!
This mendacious corrupt government has spun against GPs for 2 years with "lazy fat cat Gps" headlines that have obviously hit the mark judging by the replies on here.

Wake up and smell the coffee FFS.
Brown (Sturgeon is simply toeing the London line on this one) seeks to privatise Primary Care by hoping the GPs reject this bullying offer. However the Private Sector isnt going to be interested in you when you are 78 with dementia and diabetes.

If you want to see greedy look at the obscene bonuses Nu Lab has allowed the City to gorge on for the last 10 years dont address that to the many people who have worked their butts off for the people of this country
36

,

03/02/2008 13:35:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
37

PaddyDoc,

Lanarkshire 03/02/2008 13:40:16
Disgusted at most of the comments on here. The Scottish Govt is wasting hundreds of millions lining the pockets of Opticians for eye health checks and pharmacists to provide illness advice they were not trained to provide.

"greedy GPs" do you know that pharmacies are changing hands round here for £1.5m,as usual the lying Brown has the gullible British public in their back pocket with the persistent GPs 250k crap. Tell a lie often enough and the British public will swallow it.

Heres Private Eyes take on it

re GPs worth it? The announcement that average gross annual pay had risen to £110,000 sparked another round of Whitehall-inspired media vitriol, but the performance-related contract that GPs are bound to was negotiated and agreed with the Department of Health, Downing Street and the Treasury. Brown and Blair had at least two opportunities to veto the deal if they felt that it was too generous. GP negotiators spent a day explaining that many GPs would ‘over-perform’, because they were already managing chronic diseases better than the new contract stipulated. So why did we need it at all?

Blair and Brown believed that the money was worth paying to control GPs. Thatcher first voiced concerns that she had no idea what GPs did with their time and in 1991 introduced a contract that required partners to do 26 hours a week over 42 weeks of the year, with performance targets for vaccinations, cervical smears and ill-thought out elderly screening. Concern about the variability in treating chronic conditions such as heart disease and diabetes, and the rise of evidence-based medicine, triggered Labour’s new contract. The aim was to ensure all GPs managed these diseases to an agreed standard, in the hope that those who weren’t would be motivated by financial gain.

Many GPs find the notion of performance related pay distasteful – why do doctors need to be ‘induced’ to do what’s best for their patients? – but saw the contract as a way of correcting the previous fi
38

PaddyDoc,

03/02/2008 13:42:06
re GPs worth it? The announcement that average gross annual pay had risen to £110,000 sparked another round of Whitehall-inspired media vitriol, but the performance-related contract that GPs are bound to was negotiated and agreed with the Department of Health, Downing Street and the Treasury. Brown and Blair had at least two opportunities to veto the deal if they felt that it was too generous. GP negotiators spent a day explaining that many GPs would ‘over-perform’, because they were already managing chronic diseases better than the new contract stipulated. So why did we need it at all?

Blair and Brown believed that the money was worth paying to control GPs. Thatcher first voiced concerns that she had no idea what GPs did with their time and in 1991 introduced a contract that required partners to do 26 hours a week over 42 weeks of the year, with performance targets for vaccinations, cervical smears and ill-thought out elderly screening. Concern about the variability in treating chronic conditions such as heart disease and diabetes, and the rise of evidence-based medicine, triggered Labour’s new contract. The aim was to ensure all GPs managed these diseases to an agreed standard, in the hope that those who weren’t would be motivated by financial gain.

Many GPs find the notion of performance related pay distasteful – why do doctors need to be ‘induced’ to do what’s best for their patients? – but saw the contract as a way of correcting the previous fifteen years (when governments undercut their pay review recommendations) and improving recruitment. Many jumped at the chance at not having to organise out of hours care. This was only ever meant to be for emergencies but had become ‘24 hour access to a GP’, with demand up ten fold over twenty years. Many GPs still do out of hours care, but since 2004 it’s been the PCT’s job to finance and organise it, with predictably disastrous results.

So what are patients getting for their money? The new GP contract was never
39

PaddyDoc,

03/02/2008 13:43:01


So what are patients getting for their money? The new GP contract was never subject to a controlled trial but an average practice is now offering six thousand more consultations a year with twice as many well controlled diabetic patients and 30% more controlled hypertensives. There are several thousand fewer strokes and heart attacks each year. We’re living longer than ever but are less happy and satisfied, partly because we don’t like being on the ten tablets a day that are keeping us alive (1).

For a price, the new GP contract has controlled GPs who are in turn controlling patients with a mass medicalisation programme that seems to be reducing the incidence of nasty disease ‘events’. £110,000 a year works out at £60 an hour before deductions which hardly seems exorbitant. The cost to the NHS every time a patient sees a GP is about £24, compared to nearly £30 for NHS-Direct and over £37 for walk-in centres.

By chipping away at the morale of ‘moneybags GPs’, it’s hard to see what the government hopes to achieve. Their entire reform programme involves keeping GPs on-side to commission good value services where the PCT has failed and take some of the workload from hospitals. Lord Darzi’s London reforms will mean a ‘77% increase in GP consultations over the next 10 years or the whole system will be paralysed.’ For GPs to take on this extra work and extend their opening hours (without breeching EU law), it needs not only more GPs but receptionists, phlebotomists, health care assistants, practice nurses, district nurses, pathology and X-ray facilities and access to social services. That’s expensive, but not nearly as expensive as a district general hospital. Especially if you close it. Brown has some touch choices ahead in the age of change...
40

vitalspark,

Edinburgh 03/02/2008 13:52:24
Like most other businesses doctors should cater to the customer's needs, if this means weekend or shift working then so be it.
41

decdoc,

glasgow 03/02/2008 13:57:02
Four Years ago a new GP contract was agreed to solve a crisis in the NHS which was unable to attract new doctors. Since then the new contract has been subjected to annual changes many of which have had nothing to do with patient care.

Labour appears to have an “agenda” which is to replace the familiar NHS Family Doctor service with private sector providers such as Tesco and Virgin, who will replace doctors with nurses, and nurses with health care assistants, in order to provide a cheaper and more profitable service. We think this is wrong. We believe it will be much worse for our patients.

In order to push through this agenda the famous labour spin machine has manipulated the media, portraying us as lazy and incompetent GP’s on £250 thousand pounds a year salaries. Their “spin machine” turns 84% satisfaction with access into “access is a problem for 16% of patients”. They have conducted national surveys which show that patients are almost 100% satisfied with the GP service and believe it is very good quality.

Patients don’t believe the “spin” and doctors are still the most trusted profession. The reality is that we work very hard, as patients will already know.

Few patients know that the entire GP service costs less than £100 a year per patient, this includes, doctors, nurses health care assistants, receptionists practice managers secretaries, clerks, cleaners, the premises from which we operate the insurance heating lighting the drugs we use in surgery and all the usual things like photocopiers postage and paper – right down to the last paperclip.

Today we have a nationwide high quality GP service which is exceptionally good value for money. If we do not defend this now it will disappear and Labour will replace it with private GP’s for the better off and “Tesco Doc” for the disadvantaged.

N
42

decdoc,

glasgow 03/02/2008 14:05:15
41 like most other "businesses" we should be able to charge for services but cant.

And dont give me the crap that you pay taxes. So do I but cant get my kids school to open at times which "suit" me or cant get a dentist, or dont get any say on were NuLab send the armed forces which I pay for.

Read above GPs are cheaper than going to A/E or one of Labours wasteful "walk in" centres.

I cant get my pet dog medical insurance for cheaper than the money a GP gets for each patient on his list.

If I was allowed to run as a business I could be like my matwe who is a dentist, half the number of patients, monthly fee of 20 quid, still pay for all treatment, works 3 days a week and you still cant get an appoinytment for 3 weeks.

2
43

subrosa,

03/02/2008 14:08:03
# 36 Enoughis enough

Do you put yourself above military personnel? You know, these people who fight in wars to defend this country, or in my opinion, are sent to fight in wars which have nothing to do with us?

An army officer, for example, earns less than half the average GP salary yet they have to work all the hours the job demands (sometimes well over 70) and do so without complaint. Perhaps you're part of the population who says 'so what' to them. Many army officers are as well, if not better, educated that a GP. Just because you have an enhanced university training at cost to the taxpayer, that doesn't make you superior to anyone.

Yes that may have been the reason for the new 2004 contract but you know full well that your 'union' put forward a necessity for a ridiculous percentage of a pay rise. Of course you know what the BMA said when they had that request met with no quibble whatsoever.

The days of the 'vocation' GP, hospital doctor or consultant are long gone. Only a few survive and they will shortly retire.

So stop thinking doctors are the only people in the land who are dedicated in their jobs. My binmen have arrived to lift my rubbish every Thursday morning at 7.30am on the dot for the past 17 years. That's also dedication in my book.
44

subrosa,

03/02/2008 14:11:44
# 37 '.....study for 6 years when the other students are pissed in the pub.....'

You've just defined what people think of doctors but stating absolute rubbish. What a silly silly comment and so untrue it's laughable. It's well known in university circles that the student medics give the best parties and we all know what a party entails in student language.
45

SassyC,

Edinburgh 03/02/2008 14:12:36
37: Undoubtedly Doctors have to put in a lot of effort and hard work to become qualified. Most well-paid jobs involve this sort of effort initially. I agree it would be unreasonable to expect Doctors to work 50-80 hours a week - no-one should have to do this. What about rotas? Its not unreasonable to expect them to do 35-40 hours on a rota basis to provide more flexible cover. What is worrying is the way you talk about your patients. Clearly you have little respect for the people who need your help and provide your daily bread and butter. Are you in the right job? We need Doctors but so also do we need Refuse Collectors, shop assistants etc. All people doing a worthwhile job without which the fabric of society would fall apart. Mutual respect is what is needed........
46

decdoc,

glasgow 03/02/2008 14:17:19
compared to binmen I ve heard it all now.
Nothing against binmen do a great job.

I regularly arrive at work for 7 30, see my first patient at 8am
Know many lawyers pharmacists, brother who works in the financial sector. All arrive at work after 9, earn far more than me.

Is it some kind of sin for Drs to be renumerated, or seek to be renumerated similar to the above mentioned group of workers?
47

subrosa,

03/02/2008 14:34:08
# 47

I think you're VERY well paid for the job you do. As a self employed person (my choice I agree) I work at least 4 evenings a week plus often 6 days a week. That again is my choice but it is also necessary for the wellbeing of my customers.

We all decide what profession we wish to enter after hopefully doing our homework thoroughly.

If I had wanted a public service job I would have gone for one. My choice was to challenge myself in industry and take what rewards it offered. Never have I regretted that decision although my earnings are nowhere near yours.

Stop complaining. Your insult to binmen was inappropriate as you know full well I was commenting upon another poster implying doctors were the only profession which had a high level of dedication. You disappoint me sir with your attitude but I'm not too surprised. Doctors are no longer set on pedestals, thank goodness, and you'll have to learn to live with that.

ps If you want the earnings of a lawyer, pharmacist or financial sector worker then go train for the job. You knew, when you decided to be a doctor, what the salary scale would be. In fact the 2004 contract should have you smiling not moaning.
48

decdoc,

glasgow 03/02/2008 14:42:52
You do not know how much Im paid only the crap the Govt has allowed you to swallow.

"ps If you want the earnings of a lawyer, pharmacist or financial sector worker then go train for the job. You knew, when you decided to be a doctor, what the salary scale would be. In fact the 2004 contract should have you smiling not moaning."

So if my Union negotiate a salary commensurate with other professionals thats a crime also?
Public sector may be no more if this attitude prevails Im afraid and GPs will do a Dentist. Not all GPs will survive this but the ones with some business accumen will. You can bet your bottom dollar the good ones will be hard to find and will have closed lists.

Reap what you will sow.
49

subrosa,

03/02/2008 14:47:57
# 50

I reap what I sow on a daily basis. I never said your 'union' salary negotiations were a crime. You're actually sounding rather desperate defending your salary now. My main comment is that I personally think you're very well paid for the service you offer to society. I made no comment about the other professions with which you make comparisons. Being a medical person was YOUR choice. Stop wanting the public to fall at your feet with gratitude because these days have now gone.
50

Tayside,

03/02/2008 14:48:30
I am an experienced GP. I see my first patients at 8.10am five days a week, finish 6pm four days. Work 44 hours in total. Don't think I could work many more hours/longer days without being at risk of errors of judgement that could affect patient care. As I am the GP who has been around longest in my practice I tend to get the older patients who develop terminal illnesses or who have long term problems.

If I have to work a shift pattern I will inevitably be less avaliable during the day when the majority of patients with health greatest needs (ie the old or chronically sick) want to be seen.

If a patient needs a prescription at a late surgery the pharmacy will be closed unless they are in a city.

If a female wants a chaperone there will be no nurses around.

If they have a problem needing some specialised advice there will not be specialists avaliable at hospital to discus their case.

If they are waiting on a scan result, cancer appointment follow up etc that hasn't happened I will not be able to sort it out there and then but try the next day when the hospital specialists and secetaries are in.

All this (and no doubt most GPs could give you a list of other problems) so that workers don't have to ask their employer to go in an hour later or leave an hour earlier the once or twice a year an average person of working age needs to see a doctor.

If your surgery has an appointment system that doesn't work now that should be sorted out but this change will not achieve that. A practice with a poor system now will just have an equally poor system with later/earlier appointments.

51

Roy Forrester,

Bloomsburg USA 03/02/2008 14:49:58
See what happens when you are a civil servant. The government tells you where, when and how you will work and for how much!!!. If you were in private practice and your patients had to pay at least part of the fee they would think twice before going to the doctor. I can make an appointment to see a doctor (not necessary my doctor) at all hours of the day for emergencies etc. For non emergencies one is expected to book up in advance and there is usually at least one “out of hours” doctor on duty in the practice. One pays according to the service rendered, a charge, which is negotiated between the doctors and the insurance companies or the Government in the case of old age pensioners. Socialised medicine sound all very well but one ends up receiving treatment according to the "Lowest Common Denominator" or not at all.
52

subrosa,

03/02/2008 15:13:55
# 52

I appreciate your comments and the predicaments they throw up. Also I would say you're perhaps one of a breed of doctors who have offered an excellent service for many years.

You mentioned hospital specialist advice and results. That is an area that requires some attention. The liaison between hospital services and GPs tends to be badly lacking (and I think I live in one of the better areas).

I shan't go into detail but one perfect example of the poor use of funds was when I had to return to hospital recently with post-op complications. It was decided I require a scan, but as it was a bank holiday weekend there was nobody available to do it, so I occupied a bed for 3 nights until staff were available. Since then, I have it on excellent authority, that the scan should have been done immediately but at weekends that would mean calling out a specialist to do it. The judgement was that they would take the risk that their suspicions were wrong which fortunately proved to be correct - otherwise I wouldn't be typing this.

Everyone needs time off no matter what job they do. Sadly some do not get this such are our armed forces in war zones.
53

subrosa,

03/02/2008 15:20:32
# 53

Our private medical care system just isn't good enough for us to go over to Health Insurance for all. Germany and Italy have had problems in recent years with theirs but their overall systems are worth looking at. I wouldn't mind in the least contributing to a Health Insurance scheme as I did it for years while working in Europe.

But as soon as you say Health Insurance to the great British public they shout no. They see private companies making a fortune from their misfortunes, which could be true if such a scheme was poorly thought out.

Until we get a government who are prepared to overall the NHS from top to bottom there will always be inequalities.
54

SassyC,

Edinburgh 03/02/2008 15:42:13
47 - You missed the point I think. The comparison being made between yourself and binmen is that all jobs are valuable and cogs in the wheels of society. Do you seriously want to earn the same as a refuse collector or a shop assistant? Methinks not! It is not a sin for you to receive a salary in line with your qualifications and commitment - one would hope that your hard work and dedication would be recompensed in this way. Surely though flexibility can be incorporated into a working week?
I continue to be concerned at the postings on this site devaluing patients and think to myself that what is required in medical training is anti-discriminatory practice training and a movement towards valueing patients and their rights which existing legislation already pays lip-service to.
55

Eleana,

Bonnyrigg 03/02/2008 16:14:07
The doctor is right about the nurses. Many community nurses are employed by the primary care trust not the GPs. The trust has cut back the nurses so much there are not enough to cover holidays, training and sick leave during the day never mind at night and in the evening!
56

SassyC,

Edinburgh 03/02/2008 16:23:23
52 AND 57: In the Antipodes they manage to work their core hours whilst incorporating as much flexibility as possible. For instance a Doctor or Nurse may work 9-5 one day, 12-7 another, weekend day etc.
Surely we can learn from this? This flexible style of working would ensure that follow-up activities could happen the next day and wouldn't necessarily be the problem you think it may. Change needs to be welcomed -not feared. People who are not directly involved can stand back and observe in a way that is not so easy if you are worried about further pressure or changes to job remits. Observations of this sort should be taken in the spirit in which they are offered - after all which of us can afford not to be open to feedback?
57

Ian from Gala,

Galashiels 03/02/2008 16:23:23
My GPs already cover the whole day from 8.00am to 6.00pm when NHS24 takes over locally. I have no problem getting to see my GP and no problem with getting home visits when I need them. I am very worried that extending hours will simply reduce daytime services which are the most cost-effective and useful for the vast majority patients. This is a retrograde step which has no evidence base and will achieve nothing for the health of the nation. Scarce NHS resources should have been spent on improving Practice-based services for the chronically ill and frail elderly. What a sad waste of tax-payers cash!
58

treacleswamp,

03/02/2008 16:54:39
Being able to arrange an appointment at 10.30 pm is a luxury we don't really need.
The real problem is urgent out of hours cover, where its not a 999 problem but shouldn't have to wait 12 hours or more. Deputising services are inadequate - most practices are big enough to provide 24 hour emergency cover without the Gp covering having to work the next morning.
59

Gothic Rose,

03/02/2008 18:57:44
Fervantly hope that, I never feel the need for G.P.
60

,

03/02/2008 19:45:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
61

PJPH,

England! 03/02/2008 20:17:00
I have read all the comments above. Many are disappointing, some ill informed but hey that is the benefit of a democracy
Medicine is a vocation but that vocation has been systematicaly and cynically exploited by successive Governments for years and the worm has turned
Yes the system is not perfect and needs to be more patient friendly but it is a question of resource. We simply do not have sufficient GPs in the UK to run shifts. There are about 31000 whole time equivalent GPs and we would need about 49,000 to do a 16hrs day after accounting for annual leave sick leave and study leave. Modern General Practice is a team activity and we would need the rest of the team in adequate numbers to operate a proper service. I am on public record as offering to arrange for my surgery to be open 0700-2200 7 days per week AS LONG AS NOBODY HAS TO WORK MORE THAN 40-48 hours per week on 5 consecutive days per week. Strange that the government wouldnt take me up on my offer..why because they dont want to pay for it! Interest declare: I was and still am one of the BMA negotiators who secured the GP deal
62

subrosa,

03/02/2008 20:59:16
# 63

Oh dearie me you are consumed with your own abilities aren't you? At £250 for a newly qualified doctor? One, that myself and thousands of others paid for his qualifications? Don't be ridiculous. There are still some professional medical people in this country, who don't have your attitude towards money being the B all and end all. I know that, I gave birth to one. My one works around 50 hours a week and is quite happy with his lot. He feels nowadays particularly he gets far more time to spend with his family and he can't put a price on that. He wouldn't mind opening his practice for a few extra hours a week if it helped his patients.

So I think you're in the wrong job. If you wanted great financial reward in the medical sector perhaps you should have studied to become a consultant; they tend to earn vast amounts of money having jobs in the private and public sector.

# 64

In my small town there are two practices. One with only two doctors the other with nine. Between the practices I'm sure they could come up with a shift idea. Oh forgot, since the 2004 contract 3 in the practice of nine opted for part-time. One, a close friend, said she made as much part-time under the new contract as she did full-time pre 2004. Says a lot to me as a lowly member of the great unwashed who may become ill.
63

subrosa,

03/02/2008 21:05:04
# 63

Just occurred to me that at £250 an hour for a junior doctor on a 35 hour week with only a 40 week working year then he would receive £350,200 a year. You think you're worth that? I certainly don't. Now, if you were productive ie doing medical research free of charge in your spare time, then perhaps, just perhaps.
64

,

03/02/2008 21:36:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
65

subrosa,

03/02/2008 21:42:10
# 67

Oh right. Well may I tell you I had need of a specialist very recently myself and I decided to pay for his expertise. This man has been one of the top specialists in his subject for some years now. His bill was £320 which included one hour and a half consultation, one scan which also took approximately an hour and was performed by another specialist, plus another consultation regarding the result for around 20 minutes.

When I queried the sum charge he said that was what his service was worth.

Obviously you have another opinion.
66

Highland Mighty,

03/02/2008 21:50:01
To all the REAL doctors commenting on here, who actually do the job for REAL and so obviously know so much more about the situation than the SNP rant-and-rage mob who flock to these boards:

You are wasting your time trying to argue the case with them. To them, Salmond can do no wrong and even if he closed down the entire NHS, this lot would applaud it as "long overdue", "another shrewd move by the courageous SNP" and/or "a groundbreaking policy that will be copied throughout the world".

As you will have noticed, they aren't that bright anyway, clearly believing that Wikipedia and the SNP's own website and newsletters are reliable and factual research sources.
67

Moder8,

EDINBURGH 03/02/2008 22:00:14
My goodness. Soon Doctors will be earning as much as your average white van plumber, electrician,serviceperson.This is not good enough, who do they think they are!
Next thing they will be employing family members as secretaries/researchers, and will be claiming free lunches,rent,Mortgage interest payments and legal costs,television licences,cleaning utility bills, parking permits,utility bills,and a whole host of other "permissable" claims available to MPs and MSPs, too long to type out here.
68

DrP,

03/02/2008 22:09:35
SassyC, Edinburgh,
I'm prefectly willing to recieve replies to my posted comments, but your ad hominem attack serves only to show your total ignorance. You nothing about my attitude to patients!
If you want another "selfish rant", or even to relieve your state of ignorance contact me.
jim.currie@calgaryhealthregion.ca
69

morris,

edinburgh 03/02/2008 22:25:11
Who metioned anybody working 80 hours plus? I understand that a rota system wis how they would achieve a 24 hour coverage or at least an increased availabilty.Nobody suggested that all GPS must abandon their families and live in the surgery 24/7?
We provide duty coverage as it is when a GP retires or goes on holiday etc so its hardly a new concept.The appointements will presumably be available in line with the number of GPS available at any given time. The reception staff are not dummies and will not hand out appointments which cannot possibly be honoured.It will be exactly as it is now but less confined to the rush hour/working day .Thats hardly a major change
70

morris,

edinburgh 03/02/2008 22:38:20
69

Are you real?

One of my MSPs was a GP and honoured by the Queen recently.He is Yorkshire born and a member of the SNP and certainly does NOT regret it.

If real GPs (as you put it)oppose this then they will say so.I dont here them objecting that loudly !
You come out with the most idiotic nonsense I have encountered, and the Labour party which you claim to support would disassociate itself from you!
You have absolutley nothing to contribute which is factual, or even an intelligent opinion,you just hate the SNP.
Thats hardly going to help LABOUR is it!
Labour need to show why they are fit for office. You are doing the opposite !


71

morris,

edinburgh 03/02/2008 22:46:21
73 cont.
hear them (should be) Gee I am a lousy typist .GIve all typists SALARY INCREASE!
The spell check has helped of course,but its amazing just how many mistakes one can make !
72

DrJ - the fat one,

irvine 03/02/2008 23:00:42
Now - I have to say I'm a bit surprised at the bile of some of the early posts here but let me go on record as saying I thoroughly enjoy the time I spend with my patients and it is a real privilege to be a GP at all - there are worse jobs - I have done some of them.
What I strongly object to though are the lies and spin of New Labour - they are masters of the craft.
Almost nothing that you will have read is true - the truth is the govt. wish to take money away from MEDICAL TREATMENT for EVERYONE and put it, instead, into access for the FEW. (Less than 16% according to the govts own survey actually expressed a preference for out of hours surgeries).
No-one has addressed what will happen to out of hours emergency care which is currently being staffed by the very GP's (me) who are being asked to sit in their surgeries (me again).
You cannot - I'm sure anyone will agree - be in 2 places at once.
It's not just the GP who has to do the extra hours, so do our receptionists, nurses etc etc. and they need to be paid- so this initiative needs to be properly funded.
I appreciate some of the comments above mention a rota system to lessen the impact on individual partners to provide this service - but folks, this already exists - its called the current out of hours system!!
As a tax payer I truly object to spending my money on exactly the same effective service twice.
So I'm sorry - this - in my opinion - is the wrong move for Scotland. I'm surprised that Nicola Sturgeon hasn't enough courage to instead fund extra cancer care or extra drug treatment programmes or, in fact, anything which wasn't designed simply to get a headline or to get GB re-elected.
If I truly believed that this was a good move then I would say so - I like what I do - but as in all things Gordon Brown the devil is in the detail - he doesn't care about you or your family your GP does!
Ask yourselves - why would ONE of the hardest working groups in the community react with such vehemence to this
73

DrP,

Calgary, Canada 03/02/2008 23:40:36
DrJ,
You're absolutely correct. I foolishly let myself be caught up in the 'bile' because SassyC chose to completely misunderstand what I was trying to say, and I reacted to the insult. Sassy knows nothing of my attitude to patients, and nothing in my post showed any disrepect.
I have practised as an Ob/Gyn since 1982 in Calgary, in a group of four. Our one in four rota meant that we would work from 08:00 Friday until 17:00 Monday frequently with little sleep. That's eighty hours for those who're counting; our regular weekday on call would be 32 hours, quite frequently without any sleep. I've even hallucinated from sheer exhaustion waking from a short nap when on-call actually meant continuous working. In spite of saying that, it was always a privilege to be at a birth at any time, and I've always loved my patients.(perhape not in the case of one of my partner's patients who phoned me in the middle of the night after a party to ask for information on Chlamydia)
To explain to Sassy in simple terms (as is obviously necessary), every case which represents, or even could represent a serious problem must be seen by a doctor, whatever the hour. However, it is outrageous that doctors should have to open their surgeries for cases which are clearly routine, just for the convenience of someone who doesn't want to take time off work.
74

Macaroon Bar,

more if you please, Lees make lovely Macaroon Bars 04/02/2008 00:08:14
The average (full-time) GP earns £110,000 after NuLabour's incompetent negotiation of her/his remuneration to improve patient service.

Many GPs could hardly believe their luck and now work very short working weeks (part-time to you and me) of up to 20 hours and still earn a considerable (£60,000+) salary. (Or so my friend Rab Altarboy in Dumfries told me)
75

DrBRG,

Glasgow 04/02/2008 00:34:22
As a single handed GP with a part time associate this is impossible to fulfil and will mean patient care will suffer.
A locum may come in to work the extra hours, but whats the point if the patients want to see their own GP - they might as well go to the out of hours clinic as there will be more ancilliary staff on hand as well.
Not impressed....