At 19:08 10/02/2007, you wrote:
>Interesting point here, something in my mind about trojan horses or
>chinks in the armour or something
>
>Laurie said inter alia
>
><<As we are obliged to complete these forms for patients
>in our Terms of Service/Contract, refusal to provide a valid Med3 for an
>employer or the DWP could invite an undefendable complaint to the GMC.>>
>
>The interesting thing is that the last NASGP survey suggested that 25%
>of GP surgeries were done by non-principals. Who don't have a contract
>with PCT or whatever, who don't have Terms & Conditions of Service, who
>have not been a party to any agreement between GPC and DWP.
>So, while we do of course issue Med 3s etc in place of the regular GP,
>we are not _obliged_ to.
You asked for a barrack room lawyer?
If a practitioner offers to act as a locum, the de facto situation is
that they will undertake all the obligatory work of the person on
whose behalf they are acting during those sessions they undertake,
amended only as by express agreement with the practice.
Quite clearly practices have an obligation to provide all the
services in the practice contract. If they employ locums who fail to
help them honour this obligation, they are at risk. The locum's
future employment is also at risk, and if they have not been
forthright about their unwillingness to undertake a contractual
obligation, I suppose the GMC might take an interest.
Put another way, the whole of the core contract is part of the
implied contract between the practice and each and every
locum. There might be cause for action alleging breach of contract.
But IANAL.
Julian
|