GP Appointments - Breach of Contract?

[alanfromderby]

Okay, I have just spent 80 minutes sat in our local surgery. The appointment was for 5.20pm - I arrived at 5.10pm, and finally got to see the doctor at 6.30pm!

Now, I am not moaning about this, as I understand that doctors often get called out of surgery, and I was not in any hurry to get anywhere else.

What I was interested with though, was that about three people decided that they could not wait any longer and tried to make another appointment. The receptionist told each one that the next available appointment was APRIL 27th!!!

Firstly, I have to say that I found it astonishing that all three basically shrugged their shoulders and made the appointment for that date - despite the fact that one of them said she had waited three weeks for today's appointment.

My question though is this:

When an appointment is made with the doctor, is this not a contract being made?

If that is correct, then surely they should have been willing to offer a replacement appointment at the earliest available time. I should note here, that the surgery keeps slots clear, so that people can ring at either 8am (for an appointment that same morning), or 2pm (for an appointment that same evening). These are done on a first-come-first-served basis.

One of the three asked if she could have one of these slots for Monday - to be told that she would have to take "pot-luck" and ring at 2pm Monday. She decided to just make the appointment for April 27th.

Something is seriously wrong with this system somewhere!!

[Bookworm]

When an appointment is made with the doctor, is this not a contract being made?

I would have thought it was actually a service being rendered. One you're not directly paying for.

Are you going somewhere with that question? I'm intrigued. Or has the breach of contract fever grabbed you so hard that you can't cease wondering?

[alanfromderby]

Originally Posted by Bookworm

Or has the breach of contract fever grabbed you so hard that you can't cease wondering?

One is always wondering........

[comanche]

The crux of the problem with the NHS is that it is geared around the requirements and aspirations of the provider and not the customer. The fact that the average family pays 5 grand a year for the service is irrelevant because it's deducted directly from their wages and the service is "free at the point of use".

[alanfromderby]

Whilst you have to feel sorry for doctor's receptionists....wouldn't you just like to strangle one of them as an example. LOL
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
BTW - my wife used to be one, so I do understand it's not their fault!

[bankoff]

Hi Seminole

I am intrigued by your calculation that the average family pays £5K per year to the NHS, then this makes an average of 40 years in work at £5K per year, which is £200K, and rising.

If this is the case then one member of that family getting dementia, and having to go into a Care Home etc, has already been covered.

Which adds weight to my question "Should we have to pay AGAIN for Elderly Care"?

As its been said before in previous posts, "the amount of wastage is what the problem is with the NHS".

[comanche]

£96bn current spend divided by about 19m families in the UK. Some of the money comes from business tax of course and spending has increased quite a lot in the past few years. However, I'm not sure that there has been a commensurate improvement in the service.

[Bookworm]

Originally Posted by bankoff

I am intrigued by your calculation that the average family pays £5K per year to the NHS, then this makes an average of 40 years in work at £5K per year, which is £200K, and rising.

If this is the case then one member of that family getting dementia, and having to go into a Care Home etc, has already been covered.

But the average family will have had 60-off years of midwifes, health visitors, community nurses, doctors visits at home and at the surgery, A&E visits, operations and hospital stays, dental care, physio, etc, etc...

Don't get me wrong, I do believe there is a huge amount of wastage in the NHS, and the amount of "managers" beggars belief. But your calculation is over simplistic, in not factoring the ongoing costs of care to the average family above described.

[trundlecat]

It's the same old story, money going to all the wrong places.

Originally Posted by Bookworm

But the average family will have had 60-off years of midwifes....

Oh no, I can feel a soap box moment coming on (sorry everyone)......

Just 1 example of a HUGE waste of money. If we regarded hospital birth as the exception rather than the norm there would be millions diverted back into the NHS. Why on earth is it not assumed that women will give birth at a birth centre (much cheaper than hospital) or at home (dirt cheap compared to hospital) unless medical history or something happens in the pregnancy to warrant being hospitalised? It's ante-natal care that's made such a difference in mother/baby mortality, not hospital birthing.

Just think of the cash it would save & not to mention the hospital space it would free up.

[Bookworm]

What on earth is a birth centre?

At home? Let's see...
Because most women actually like the idea of not being in major pain for hours with little relief?
Because most women do not want to have the neighbours, the other children and the milkman around when they give birth?
Because you never know what can go wrong? And that the only way to ensure the minimum or risk to mother and child is to be in an adequate facility. I have 3 children, every one of them would have died if I hadn't been in hospital. There was nothing in my pregnancies to predict things could go wrong.
Because we are, thank goodness, in the 21st century, and women are actually entitled to some care and dignity, rather than drop the sprog, clean up and return to the cooker in time to make dinner.

[trundlecat]

You probably have a birth centre near you. Fantastic NHS facilities. Midwife run, all pain relief available, far more homely & non-clinical atmosphere.

As I'm a total wimp when it comes to pain I can only assume that the research must be right & being at home does make you better able to cope with the pain & so you percieve it to hurt less.

My neighbours didn't even realise I'd had my 1st baby so I doubt the milkman would either. I was very lucky, had I been in hosptal & decided to take the hours "break" in contractions when I did they'd have had me on a hormone drip then sliced me open & put me & baby at risk...... Although yes, I did have him at 8:30pm & by 6am the next morning I was up cleaning windows lol..... archaic or maybe quite amazing how little it affects you when you stay at home? As for dignity.... being in my own home with 2 midwives who stay till the bitter end seems far more dignified to me than the hospital option.

Off the soap box now, apologies to the men who are sat cringeing, I promise there'll be no more birth stories.

I still maintain that they cut costs from all the wrong places & in many cases it's bad management & too much patient care time spent on paperwork & target planning that causes the huge waiting time for appointments. We keep hearing that the population is falling so it can't be just sheer numbers that's causing this.... something's obviously not working. A 3 week wait to see a GP is neither use nor ornament if you're ill the day you phone for an appointment.

[mechs]

Originally Posted by alanfromderby

Whilst you have to feel sorry for doctor's receptionists....wouldn't you just like to strangle one of them as an example. LOL
BTW - my wife used to be one, so I do understand it's not their fault!

Can you tell me did you strangle her as well lolol

[mechs]

Originally Posted by Bookworm

But the average family will have had 60-off years of midwifes, health visitors, community nurses, doctors visits at home and at the surgery, A&E visits, operations and hospital stays, dental care, physio, etc, etc...

I have recently had about 15 grands worth of my money back from the nhs in ops I agree unless you are one of the extremely lucky ones that never goes to the docs then you cant say that you havent recieved any form of care for your money

[natalie]

I dont think hospital births are a waste of money, i think sending me a letter and fancy leaflet asking me what hospital I want my son to go to (there's only one in my area) is a waste of money, I believe in choice, but why cant the GP ask if I want a different hospital at the time of referral?

I think the bureaucracy (sp, think its right but looks wrong!) its what is wrong with the NHS, get rid of the unnecessary paperwork and the unnecessary managers will follow!

[John L]

The question of GP appointments has vexed me and my family on a number of occasions. In our case, our GP used to have appointments booked from 9:30 in the morning, but consistently did not arrive at the surgery until 10:15 or later. The appointments were then started from 10:00am but still the GP was arriving 45 or even 60 minutes late. The appointment times have moved back even further, but still the GP is late arriving.


Our GP is the sole physician in the practice, but he has several consulting rooms at the surgery. He will call several patients out of the waiting room and ask them to sit in different rooms. He will then visit one patient, break off before the consultation is over and it seems he will go and visit one or more of the other patients, before returning some time later to continue the consultation.


Most people regard GP's as being highly trained professionals, and we feel that as a professional our GP fails to respect his patients, by being consistently significantly late, and failing to offer his undivided attention to his patients.


Is there some guidance on the level performance in these regards that patients should reasonably expect?