The BMA is standing between patients and a better service
Not content with grossly misrepresenting the government's position on opening hours, the British Medical Association has now resorted to sabotage to block modernisation of our primary care services.
Richard Vautrey, deputy chairman of the union's GPs committee, has encouraged family doctors to ignore requests from primary care trusts to provide information on practice opening hours and availability of appointments.
The move is intended to undermine attempts by the Department of Health to audit access to services.
This crass, childish behaviour damages both the reputation of GPs and their long-term future as independent contractors.
GPs cannot take state money then refuse to be held to account for the services they provide. The BMA seems to be treating primary care as the personal fiefdom of its members, not a public service.
Dr Vautrey's intervention has provided a powerful argument for replacing traditional GPs with contracted services from major private providers, as no company would embark on a policy of non co-operation with government. So, far from representing the interests of family doctors, he is undermining their viability.
And as a consumer of healthcare I find it offensive that an organisation which purports to represent patients' interests - as the BMA does ad nauseum in media interviews - is working so hard to stop me getting a better service.
There are two groups that need to work out where they stand on all this. The first is the mass of GPs who - even though they may not agree with all the government is doing - must surely wince at the way the BMA is portraying their position.
The second is primary care trusts. As the artillery shells have flown between the government and GP lines, PCTs have been keeping their heads down in the middle.
To a degree this is wise politics; while the principal protagonists indulge in the luxury of conflict, PCTs have to maintain relations and keep services running.
But if PCTs are serious about being in the vanguard of a patient-centred service and delivering on the rhetoric of world class commissioning, they cannot leave all the heavy lifting to the government. Improvement must be led by patient need, not what GPs are willing to provide, which means PCTs having the courage to articulate a vision for local primary care, then winning the arguments.
Have your say
You must sign in to make a comment.
Share
Readers' comments (6)
Mary Church | 14-Feb-2008 11:28 am
How much management time will be wasted collecting and analysing this data? And for what purpose? The data will change regularly to accommodate public holidays, annual leave, sickness leave, illness prevalence and patient demand. Appointment systems are fluid and monitoring every practice in every town throughout the land is a total waste of management time. Far better to look att the overall health outcome and patient satisfaction.
If managers think such micromanagement is a good use of NHS resources then no wonder its creaking under the strain.
This threatening article will only strengthen the resolve of doctors and the BMA to properly represent the needs of their patients.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
brian balmer | 14-Feb-2008 12:48 pm
I am amazed that the editor of the HSJ thinks that collecting data on every appointment in every surgery in England is a good use of PCT management time. His comments reflect an anti-BMA sentiment that is clearly seen in government actions but not reflected in PCTs. The current extended hours proposal from the DH is almost certainly inefficient ,and is probably unworkable as it has been designed by those with little experience of primary care. GPs will provide an extended hours service that meets patient needs but the political interference with which this has been cloaked does nothing to further this aim.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Daryl Mullen | 18-Feb-2008 12:25 pm
So Richard clearly you believe that a "better service" is one that has longer opening hours. But what will happen when you see your GP at 8pm at night after he's been working for 12 hours and makes an error? We are already working at maximum capacity. You are living in a day dream if you think private companies will prove "better". You will simply get Drs and noctors who don't know you, don't care and draw the same salary regardless of your care and prescribe based on your wants not needs.
Given that a GP consultation costs HMG £20-25 a go we are very efficient.
Watch the video on our home page www.parboldsurgery.co.uk
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 20-Feb-2008 4:32 pm
And I find it offensive that so much time, effort and money is devoted to publishing a magazine that glorifies NHS managers/ managerialism and repeatedly adversely analyses the responses of the medical profession to a venal, corrupt and bullying government.
When privatisation comes, the biggest losers will be the present arrogant and insufferably incompetent layers of NHS managers. Wake up and smell the coffee! What is being done to frontline clinical workers now will give ministers [whether Labour or Tory] a taste for mendacity on a scale hitherto undreamt of.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
stewart mcmenemin | 8-Mar-2008 1:12 pm
Dear Mr Vize,
I'm a GP in Glasgow. I arrive in the surgery at 7.15am and leave at 6.30pm. I love my job and find the hours manageable. I will be happy to do evening surgeries if you can answer the following 2 questions.
1- If I do a, say, 6.30-9pm surgery, do you want me to work from 7.15am until after 9pm (i.e. 14-15 hours) and if not, who will see all of the patients I would normally see in the morning? All of the doctors already have long and very busy and always fully booked surgeries each morning and afternoon.
2- The Govt has specified that the doctor has to work alone. Would you like to work in a nearly empty surgery with a lone receptionist in some areas of the country? stewart
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Clive Peedell | 11-Mar-2008 0:32 am
Mr Vize says "GPs cannot take state money then refuse to be held to account for the services they provide"
This is a very reasonable statement, but what about ISTC contracts and private firms involved in the PFI? The Health Select Committee and NAO are repeatedly repelled with the "commercial confidentiality" argument. It is therefore impossible to compare the public and private sector fairly and hence the default position of Government ministers egged on by the managenment consultancy industry is that "private is better and more cost effective" - without a shred of evidence.
All rather depressing, but all the more reason to for doctors to fight back
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment