GPs vote for Industrial action

None of the GPs in my practice work more than 3 days a week. It’s because a day can be 12 + and stressful hours at that. Fewer and longer appointments is what the GPs are going to offer as their work to rule. This would be a better service in my opinion. The problem is that there are fewer GPs, and more practices have closed. Better working conditions are required if we want to retain the ones we have and attract more to the profession.

I agree absolutely with vegansrock and think that we need to find a way to recruit and retain GP's and pay and conditions of service must be considered to help this.
However, I think that the data of "30p a day per patient" is not quite as damning as it seems.
This represents a little over £100 a year.
I have not seen a GP for several years - eight maybe?. My named person, at the group practice works only one day a week. I do mot know if it is a woman or a man.
Anytime I have wanted to consult a medical professional I have met with the practice nurse. I have no problem with this, and support good working conditions for all doctors, but want to point out that what seems a dramatically low sum of money might not reflect how many people use the service.

It will make no difference here then, you're more likely to have an invite from the Palace for breakfast than seeing a GP, never mind someone answering the phone..

Do people think it is acceptable for each GP to be expected to see up to 40 patients a day when the safe recommended number is 25 per day? Do you want to be the 40th patient?

If the GP in our practice who has just bought a new Porsche sports car with personalised number plate (it replaces another) goes on strike I promise to vandalise the car.

Sorry, I know they work hard and deserve more but that car riles me.

I think it is disgraceful for GPs to strike. They are well-paid, but not as well-paid as they think they should be.
They need to look at the structure of the finances within their practice, and see how much money goes to the partners rather than employing extra staff.

GPs compare their pay with that of private practices such as solicitors, accountants, vets and dentists which are able to charge increasingly extortionate fees to fund their salaries.

This is what the government and particularly Rachel Reeves should be investigating but they cannot risk confrontation with their paymasters, the unions.

40 patients a day at ten minutes each is 400 minutes which is 6.66 hours x 3 days a week is 20 hours a week. Many gps are part time.
Our large surgery seems to have a huge team of back up staff in addition to the 40 gps who serve 4 practices.
Of course by all means highlight problems relating to patient care and safety. It seems to be a bit of a lottery whether you are fobbed off with exercise sheets rather than forwarded onto hospital for investigation. GPs do have reasonable grounds for highlighting certain workplace practices but why not spend just a little longer talking to the new health minister before taking industrial action?

It's unclear to me if they are striking about their personal pay or the money going into the practice. Ie money for either more GP's /anciliary staff. (ie the 30p per patient)

"Patients in danger from overworked GPs says doctors’ spokesperson as strike threat looms
‘It is dangerous for GPs to see 60-70 patients a day,’ warns top GP Clare Gerada"

(Independent).

Wyllow3 our practice has a cut off point for the number of patients seen on any one day. You are told to ring 111 or go to a walk in clinic or A&E if urgent care is needed.
Seems a huge variation across the country if gps are seeing 70 patients a day because my local gps definitely don’t.

Not sure about my practice, its definitely a lot more than 25 (the figures I presume cover telephone consultations as well as f2f) I doubt 60-70

Still not sure the assumption is going directly into GP pockets is correct, or they want more than the 30p per patient to manage the practice as a whole, a different matter altogether.

Our practice no longer offers telephone consultations with GPs as ‘patients don’t like them’. There are however still many phone calls from the in house pharmacist, nurses and even a physio. As with many if not most practices all GPs barr 1 work part time. One at least chooses to work two long days rather than three standard days. It’s their choice to suit their lifestyle rather than for caring responsibilities . I’ve no idea if or how the practice would implement the suggested protest routes and wonder what will happen in any practice where some are BMA members voting for the action and some are not.

I went for a blood test this morning and decided to ask about any action.
They have morning meetings before they open and it wasn't raised nor discussed by anyone.

The bloke in reception had heard of it as regards in the press, but no discussions had taken place at all either over last few weeks or in the future.

Beginning to think we should be careful about scaremongering news reports, but if you are worried, to find out.

My chum is a practice manager.
She recently had a newly qualified GP who had previously been their GP trainee. He desperately wanted to stay but had to leave her practice as they couldn't employ him due to the number of registered patients.
You apprently have to have "X" number of patients per GP.
They didn't have enough to keep /pay him.
So his training place which is funded, has a new incumbent.

My medical centre only offers appointments and phone consultations in the morning, and one afternoon, each week. They cannot be " seeing" sixty or seventy people a day in that time frame, surely ?

I doubt it. Unless it includes signing off prescriptions.

www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/aug/01/why-gps-in-england-are-taking-collective-action

The money is for the practices not GP pay.

However since the numbers voting to work to rule were very small relatively it may be many have the experience that I did today - had not been considered at all for the practice.

Visgir1

My chum is a practice manager.
She recently had a newly qualified GP who had previously been their GP trainee. He desperately wanted to stay but had to leave her practice as they couldn't employ him due to the number of registered patients.
You apprently have to have "X" number of patients per GP.
They didn't have enough to keep /pay him.
So his training place which is funded, has a new incumbent.

Interesting. Thanks Visgirl for explaining this.

GPs are self employed, the money is for their practice not an increase in their wages. They decide that themselves, presumably can increase their salaries if they get more £££

Urmstongran

Mind you, as we all know, it’s a nightmare trying to survive on a hundred grand a year.

......for a two day week at our local surgery!

If GPs are now going to work to rule, how will we notice any difference?

The BMA has become a totally politicised organisation with its own political agenda. Very changed alas.

However, I must praise the GP practice I belong to. The doctors are all good, the receptionists kind and helpful. It is always possible to see a doctor face to face. I recently communicated a problem I was very worried about, via the website, Within 10 minutes I was phoned and offered an immediate appointment. That was followed by a further test and I was seen 1 week later by a consultant at the local hospital!
I have belonged there for many years and can’t speak highly enough of them.

Visgir1

My chum is a practice manager.
She recently had a newly qualified GP who had previously been their GP trainee. He desperately wanted to stay but had to leave her practice as they couldn't employ him due to the number of registered patients.
You apprently have to have "X" number of patients per GP.
They didn't have enough to keep /pay him.
So his training place which is funded, has a new incumbent.

Yes, that confirms what DH was told when chatting with the practice nurse at our surgery. They are not allowed to employ another GP. It all seems rather conflicting and confusing to me, as an outsider; we need GPs we are told, but I understand that there are newly qualified ones having to work as locums as they cannot get permanent posts. Combine this with the fact that most practices are partnerships, which should be fully independent but obviously have to apply for funding/payment from their local NHS body, it all is an unsatisfactory muddle.

Seeing how quickly Labour caved in to the junior doctors' demands, I can understand the action from the GP's. Make hay while the sun shines.

Sarnia

Seeing how quickly Labour caved in to the junior doctors' demands, I can understand the action from the GP's. Make hay while the sun shines.

It’s not related to Labour being in power though, it’s a response to the pay award offered before they came into power, GPs were balloted on 17th June.

So conflicted about this.

Not so long ago, a GP would actually see in surgery 18 per session, so 36. + emergency apps added to each list. Then go and do homevisits both morning, afternoon and after surgery. And a few teaching and/or industrial appointments on top. PLUS night visits, normally 1 night in 4, or 1 night in 3 if a partner away on hols, or sick. And 1 week-end in 3 or 4- ON TOP, of the above. And then of course all the admin or running what is actually a business, and all the 100s of insurance reports (the bane of any GP I've known, as they can take so long going through all the notes, etc).

Now that was crazy- but the norm for GPs for a very long time. It was just too much- and I would not wish this on anyone. And of course would make it even worse to recruit and retain.

But GPs are now mostly part time, don't do home visits, don't do night or weekend calls, and don't even see many patients face to face.

Just don't know what the answer is.

GPs know that the NHS is under threat, and that Labour has inherited 14 disastrous years, with coffers empty, and worse, humongous debt to repay. So I feel industrial action at this stage, for very well paid GPs, is massively WRONG.