GPs will be named and shamed over failure to see patients

[gareth_r]

Telegraph 24 November 2022 - GPs will be named and shamed over failure to see patients face to face
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegrap...

The article contains this link:
CHECK HOW YOUR LOCAL GP IS PERFORMING - https://cf-particle-html.eip.telegraph.co.uk/5e555...

Which reveals, for my GP
FACE-TO-FACE APPOINTMENTS 38% (other local GPs are between 34% and 95%)
SEEN WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF BOOKING 97%
(The latter figure may not be the stellar performance it appears to be... they book ONLY same-day telephone appointments.)


I wonder who on PH can set the record for lowest percentage of GP face-to-face appointments?


As an aside, my GP's website lists the doctors' working hours.
Dr. A: Partner - Normal working days: Monday, Tuesday mornings & Thursday
Dr. B: Partner - Normal working days: Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday & Friday
Dr. C: Partner - Normal working days: Monday morning, Wednesday & Thursday
Dr. D: Salaried - Normal working days: Tuesday & Friday
Dr. E: Salaried - Normal working days: Monday & Thursday
Dr. F: Salaried - Normal working days: Monday morning & Wednesday morning
Dr. G: Salaried - Normal working days: Wednesday & Friday

Is this a typical set up?

[SpeckledJim]

I had an illuminating chat with an NHS bod the other day where they outlined the very many entrepreneurial opportunities available to the GPs.

I say entrepreneurial - there's zero risk, one lazy and clueless customer, and huge revenues from lots of different angles.

There's a reason they don't appear to be working very much.

[irc]

Yes. I know a GP who is in a 5 partner practice where they all work 3 day weeks.

But. That is not 8 hour days. There is admin etc done outside patient contact time so maybe more like a 30 hour week if not more.

And that is only if none of the partners are on holiday, sick, or otherwise unavailable.

Due to the difficulty of getting locum cover they cover each other's absences. So all in maybe not far off a 40 hour week over the year.

Given the years to qualify and train to become GPs I don't grudge them well paid 40 hour weeks.


Anyway given the tax rates once you get past £100k I can understand GPs not working overtime where the benefits mostly goes in tax.

[otolith]

A surgery has to provide a number of sessions based on the number of patients on its books. It is up to the surgery whether they cover that with the partners, the salaried doctors, or locums. The salaried doctors are paid based on the number of sessions they are contracted for, the locums are paid by the session, and the partners are paid out of whatever is left over. The partners and salaried doctors do their sessions and also process test results, medication reviews, etc. The partners also run the practice as in any other business (premises, financial, regulatory, HR, development) - to an extent which depends upon the capability of their practice manager.

[Teppic]

gareth_r said:

I wonder who on PH can set the record for lowest percentage of GP face-to-face appointments?

Cheating a bit as it's not for me, but rather my mum, whose surgery has a whopping 17% of patients getting a face-to-face appointments, with 97% seen within two weeks.

Mine is 30% for face-to-face, and 98% seen within 2 weeks.

[Riley Blue]

Not the practice I go to but I'm looking at one which scores:

17% F2F

78% within two weeks.

Mine's 98% and 80%.

[Scabutz]

Something wrong with the stats. Mine for October is showing 99% face to face. While I for one had a phone consultation in Oct and wasnt the only one as that was what was offered. Was fine for me as I didnt need to be seen, but the choices when I logged into the online system had about 20 appointments for phone consultations, so how are they say 99% were face to face?

[TwistingMyMelon]

I see we are no longer clapping for the NHS and back to whineling about them. I know a few GPS and they work their bloody arses off

Maybe if as a society we kept fit , ate well and looked after ourselves GPs could have more time for the people that really needed them

[craig1912]

I’m not sure how the data was compiled but for my old practice it states 97 and 97 which is completely wrong. Patients can’t even do “e- consults”, there is a local action group set up and MPs have been involved in trying to resolve the current mess. People have died and to have any chance of getting an appointment you need to walk into the surgery first thing in the morning. You then may get a phone call.
As the data appears to be submitted by the surgeries I guess it’s easy to manipulate.

[SBDJ]

16% F2F at my GP and I'm actually surprised it's that high given my experiences with them!

[Funk]

18% F2F at mine - I'm unsurprised. It's the worst-performing in that regard when compared to other surgeries in my locale.

[essayer]

client journalism for shouty boomers

[bigpriest]

Poor quality data taken from GP systems by NHS Digital/England. No standard way of coding appointments across GP practices, doesn't account for online activity such as AskMyGP and other digital providers. Makes you wonder what the agenda is by publishing it and allowing the media to frame it in such a way.

[Rivenink]

Face to Face appointments are not always essential, and its a bit backwards to suggest that this should be used a measurement of how good a GP practice is.


A while back I had some symptoms that might have been something serious. I had a phone appointment with the doctor who after discussing them, arranged for tests to be done. It was quick, effective and wasted very little of my time waiting around in the doctors surgery. There would have been little that the Doctor would have said or done different had I sat in his waiting room for 30 minutes before talking to him.

[Super Sonic]

How about we apply this to MPs? 'I couldn't see my MP cos he was in Oz eating kangaroo bks'

[otolith]

Rivenink said:

Face to Face appointments are not always essential, and its a bit backwards to suggest that this should be used a measurement of how good a GP practice is.


A while back I had some symptoms that might have been something serious. I had a phone appointment with the doctor who after discussing them, arranged for tests to be done. It was quick, effective and wasted very little of my time waiting around in the doctors surgery. There would have been little that the Doctor would have said or done different had I sat in his waiting room for 30 minutes before talking to him.

In many cases what is needed is a conversation, not an examination. I certainly don't want to have to drive to my GP and hang around the waiting room for something that could have been a ten minute phone call.

[KaraK]

Rivenink said:

Face to Face appointments are not always essential, and its a bit backwards to suggest that this should be used a measurement of how good a GP practice is.


A while back I had some symptoms that might have been something serious. I had a phone appointment with the doctor who after discussing them, arranged for tests to be done. It was quick, effective and wasted very little of my time waiting around in the doctors surgery. There would have been little that the Doctor would have said or done different had I sat in his waiting room for 30 minutes before talking to him.

Spot on - they're not always essential - and I have to say I'm a bit concerned that boiling things down to very one-dimensional measurements like this would only encourage some GP's to game the reporting to make the numbers look good. The fact that many surgeries only allow booking same day and just run with the inevitable st mess that results as people frantically hammer the phone lines first thing in the morning smacks of "managing" the booked-to-seen times to meet some bullst KPI.

My GP has 40% F2F and 99% "Within 2 weeks" figures - the first is because (not unreasonably) they do telephone consultations first in many cases and only organise to have you come in if they deem it necessary to actually examine you in person. So the first figure is always going to "look" crap, and they only take bookings the same day if you ring up - and even when scheduling follow up bookings they only book those out two weeks in advance. So the second figure is always going to "look" great (Frankly how they even managed to get it below 100% is a mystery - they literally won't book you anything more than two weeks away)

So out of two metrics one makes them look worse than they actually are, and the other makes them look better than they are. So neither is particularly meaningful and neither manages to capture some of the real frustrations that exist with their service.

The thing is telling people that the NHS is going to push GPs to increase F2F is a great soundbite, particularly with older folks who are probably less comfortable with remote consultations vs in-person. Personally if they (my GP) would just apply the barest smidgeon of organisational nous to how they handle the telephone appts I'd take that over them seeing every tom-dick-and-harry F2F any day of the week.

I'm a big fan of the NHS in general - they've saved my life at least once so that makes me predisposed to like them for some reason. But there real issues and things that can be improved - but they aren't going to be captured in nice easy soundbite-sized stats and as a result they're going to get neglected

[craig1912]

Rivenink said:

Face to Face appointments are not always essential, and its a bit backwards to suggest that this should be used a measurement of how good a GP practice is.

I agree but my old surgery people are struggling to speak to a GP. They can’t get through on the phone, they have removed e consults from the website and he only way of completing one is by filling it out at the surgery.
They’ve just built a few thousand new houses in the area too, so the problem will get worse.

My current surgery isn’t taking on any new patients until into next year.

The system in general is a shambles

[Murph7355]

80% f2f at mine, with 87% seen within 2wks of booking. But I call BS on that second stat as in 11yrs I've never not been able to get in on the day I call for something "urgent" (non-A&E).

Now I would like to see the "name and shame" for every practice of all the aholes that book appointments and no show.

[Elderly]

gareth_r said:

The article contains this link:
CHECK HOW YOUR LOCAL GP IS PERFORMING - https://cf-particle-html.eip.telegraph.co.uk/5e555...

Which reveals, for my GP
FACE-TO-FACE APPOINTMENTS 38% (other local GPs are between 34% and 95%)
SEEN WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF BOOKING 97%
(The latter figure may not be the stellar performance it appears to be... they book ONLY same-day telephone appointments.)


I

/\ this.
I clicked on the link for two local surgeries where I know GPs and whose statistics were wildly different;
one apparently excellent, the other apparently awful.

The reality is that the awful one was in fact ‘better, but the headline figures were mainly down to the way statistically the practices booked.