Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So I had an appointment last Friday at 6:50pm. Due to a crap tube I was running late, I ended up arriving at 6:52pm.


"Sorry, we have a policy, if you are even one minute late for an appointment, you can't be seen and have to rebook."


ONE MINUTE!


I can understand that there has to be a cut off point for being late, but one minute! I can only imagine that the GPs who run this operation have introduced such a policy to avoid having to stay any longer at the surgery than they have to. Well very nice for them.


"Salaried GPs employed directly by PCTs earnbetween ?53249 to 80354, ..." According to the NHS careers website.


(http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/details/Default.aspx?Id=553)


Well if you can't be bothered to stay an extra ten minutes or so at work to help ill people when you are paid that much, shame on you!


What a downright mean, nasty and oppressive policy this is.


ps to those reading this thread, I am indeed sack donger, the same guy who posted this issue last week. Some of you may remember the outrage caused by my choice of words. I admit that my original choice of language towards DMC was inappropriate and apologise for any offence caused. In mitigation I was absolutely furious, and of course highly ill!


I have re-posted the same topic again as I feel that this is a very important community issue, for which DMC need to be brought to account. I promise not to use foul language again, so please don't try to provoke me!


Let the debate begin once again!

MM, all very well reigniting the debate, if there is one (to me it seems there isn't - DMC was being inflexible and should have seen you, no question) - but you would do much better in writing a letter to the DMC, copying it to Tessa Jowell and the relevant NHS department that deals with GP complaints. Banging on about on here really won't do anything.

I posted quite a gew times to the other thread saying that in recent years I had always found the reception staff to be incredibly helpful and they have allowed me to book my children in late for appointments on occasion. But I don't really feel like rehashing the debate again.


Yes, a one minute late in the evening policy is draconion, if true. As originally you said you were 20 mins late, I am not sure of the truth of it. Certainly, if you were as rude in person as you were in te original thread, yoy probably wouldn't have won any friends amongst the reception staff (and by 6.50pm with no one waiting for that last appt, maybe the dr had left?)

I like DMC and generally find them helpful and efficient, but I have also had a similar prob there. I once rushed to get there for an end of day appt and fearing I'd be late, I actually ran the last couple of roads so I got there, panting, with 2 minutes to spare. The receptionist informed me that I would not be seen as I was 1 minute late. I assured her that I was not as the clock on my phone is set (anal I admit) by the speaking clock to ensure I'm not late for appointments and trains etc!

In the end I phoned the speaking clock to show her that it was (by now only about 20 seconds!) before my appointment, but she just kept nodding at the surgey clock and telling me I was 1 minute late. After a few minutes of us quibbling about this I asked for her to get a senior colleague and then she said 'well your appointment should have started 4 minutes ago so you're definitely too late now' as if it was my fault she had kept me arguing in reception! I was not best pleased. Having said that, I think the service there is generally good, but when being 'late' comes down to the difference between your watch and the receptionist's clock, (which was running 2 mins fast) there should perhaps be a better rule. Or the surgey clock needs to definitely be set to the speaking clock! :)

I was at the DMC yesterday and mentioned this post.There is no one minute rule.The subject will be up for discussion at the next Practice Meeting.


DMC has helped me through some very difficult times.They deserve support not childish unsupported rants.


MN

It's a shame you missed the appointment due to a crap tube and that someone said there was a one minute rule - this seems strange, since i have heard them tell people if you are more than 15 minutes late your appointment is lost. This is fair enough.


Your argument that just because doctors earn ?x amount they should be expected to wait around after hours isn't particularly balanced. Why should the doctor hang around after hours just in case a late appointment shows up - not fair on the medical staff who may have a family to get home to or a life to lead outside of work.


If you miss an appointment and must see a doctor then there is always the out of hours surgery run through SELDOC or alternatively A&E is a bus ride away

Mexican Mike has been deleted. I guess the previous poster might have been banned and Mexican Mike was an attempt to get round it?


Interesting what you say, mothernature. Maube it was one over zealous receptionist.. or maybe Mexican Mike or whoever he was, was just rude to them!

Being in the front of the general public as a full time job is a personality changing experience.


People coming at you all the time makes one rather short tempered, and the general public are very demanding and in some cases obnoxious and aggressive.


Even in countries where they have a delightful countenance like Thailand, the taxi drivers are the most surly of all the Thai's I met, and mainly because they are constantly trying to earn a living by negotiating or rather arguing, several times per hour over the cost of the fare.


DMC reception is no different, the people employed there are not going to retire early on what they earn, so are there for the long haul,

and whenever I have been in there, even though something has gone wrong and an hour or so of my time has been wasted I have always maintained my civility.

Nothing can change what's already happened, so I try to be a patient patient.

Last time I booked a late appointment I was told (rather sharply) at the time of booking that I wouldn't be seen if I was late. I've not been told this for appointments in 'normal' working hours, so presume it only applies to out of hours appointment, which is fair enough... just a shame that appointments still run late even with the rule!
I think most people would agree that a GP practice has the right to have a rule about appointment times. They have to have a cut-off point somewhere. If they choose it to be one-minute late then so be it. Next time you make an appointment aim to get there 10 minutes before the appointment. Take a good book.

18 months ago I had numerous infuriating encounters with DMC ranging from ineptitude, poor management to peculiar policies. Thoroughly annoying at the time but I have now moved surgeries and, fortunately, haven't had to find out if my new surgery is equally bad. It really doesn't surprise me at all to hear that the DMC has failed to meet simple standards again.


EDITED to amend rubbish grammar

I'm not a patient at DMC but at my surgery the "charter" I had to sign before being taken on as a patient included agreeing to turn up 10 minutes before my appointment time to ensure I was there on time. And I'd consider turning up at 6.50 for a 6.50 appointment to be late - there's no way you'll be ready to be seen on time.
DMC is one of the better GP surgeries I've encountered, I find their reception staff (mostly) very efficient and polite and the doctors (mostly!) are very good - there are one or two that I am able to avoid, all of the others I have seen have been excellent. As for late policies, just before Christmas I had 9am appointment and ended up being 30 minutes late, I explained the situation - a lady had gone into labour literally on me in the street and I took her into a house and waited until the ambulance arrived - there was no question about me not being seen by the doctor (even though the situation seemed fairly far-fetched). I am very happy with the service they provide and can imagine they deal with a number of a**holes on a daily basis.......

In the thread which was taken down I had noted that a policy of punishing late arrivals is consistent with, and similar too, the policy that airlines have of over-booking - many GP and Dentist practices rely on no-shows (and lates) to allow them to over-book practitioner time - that way the doctors, and dentists, are working all the time. Of course, on the days when everybody actually turns up it is necessary to be strict about 'punishing' late arrivals so that the work-load is manageable - of course that is also the reason why so many of us have to wait so long after our booked appointment time to see anyone - we are suffering from fewer people than anticipated missing appointments or being punishably late.


If, as patients, we become more reliable then the over-booking will have to be cut-back - that I think is what we are not seeing at the moment - practices are still booking in (probably) 5 minute slots when the average time is probably 6-7 minutes - it all mounts up when everyone turns up, and on time. At the end of the day, or at the end of a morning session I suppose, punishing any latecomer, even when only fractionally late and that by a surgery clock out of synch with other time sources will be the only way that the staff can get home at all at a reasonable hour - they can't actually handle the numbers of people they book in for a particular surgery session, nor do they plan to.


As a patient it is of course annoying that we are punished for lateness, but we can be required to wait (sometimes) inordinate amounts and often without apology or explanation.


I am not a DMC patient by the way, and have no experience of the way they treat their patients - I am picking up from the experiences I have of my own surgery (which operates a 10 minute rule, to my knowledge).

As far as I am aware - knowing many practices well - that nobody over books like an airline. In fact most surgeries underbook and add catch-up slots in for their GPs to help them run to time. Missed appointments are not a relief because they mean the surgery runs better, they are a waste of time and a frustration to the practice who could have offered the appointment to someone else. Many practices put a lot of work into reducing missed appointments and have spent money on texting patients to reduce this.


The fact is that the line for late arrivals has to be drawn somewhere and at 10minutes the patient has missed the entire appointment. If a GP practice were to allow everyone to come in very late they would run further and further behind. GP practices devote an enormous amount of time trying to arrange their appointments to suit local needs, their patients work patterns, children's school hours and holidays, fluctating demand over the week, seasonal changes etc to accomodate patients. If you call them to warn them you are running late for a good reason they are generally understanding. The average consulatation time in real terms is more like 12 minutes. If you want to be seen on time for sure I suggest you simply ask to book an appointment at the beginning of the surgery.


It is very easy to say patients should be allowed to run late because GPs run late, but GPs do not run late by choice. They run late as patients and people do not fit neatly into 10 minutes slots and never will, because emergencies crop up or because some patients just need that little extra time in with the doctor. Those who complain about being late in are quite often happy to overstay their 10 minutes when they see the GP and appreciate the time spent with them. Sometimes I think it is forgotten GPs want to go home at the end of the day too or perhaps have a school run to get to themselves!

If it is true that the average time per patient is 12 minutes (I assume that this includes 'write-up' time for notes), then doctors should be aiming to see 5 patients an hour - but I think they book normally in 10 minute slots (based on the times I have been given for appointments) i.e 6 patients an hour - so leaving unbooked catch-up time is effectively admitting that they are otherwise over-booking. Over a 4 hour surgery (without slack time built in) that means that they would be booking-in almost a full extra hour of patients.


Over-booking is normal to ensure full utilisation of scarce resources - making run-rate assumptions about no-shows - which we know to be an issue for the NHS. That is also why airlines over-book - and are occasionally caught-out when everyone does turn up for a flight. Airlines want to fly full planes, doctor don't want to be sitting around twiddling their thumbs because there are no patients waiting (and we, as tax payers funding them, wouldn't want that either)


And of course GP medical staff need to work to predictable hours - that is often why they have chosen to be GPs rather than work in hospitals - so they can organise their personal lives better.

What is DMC policy on them seeing people at appointment time.

Last 3 appointments - 1 hour wait, 30 minute wait, 45 minute wait.

Any organisation that is so totally impunctual cannot but be flexible with people turning up a minute or so late.

My surprise wasn't that they didn't tell him he was 29 minutes early...

Has anyone ever been seen on time at DMC? I'm yet to meet the person.


And to those people who say "don't bang on about it here" etc, you obviously haven't been on this forum before because that is exactly the purpose of this section of the forum (see 13 odd pages on Nasty Nigel etc). Who are you to tell anyone what they can and cant debate?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...