Posts Tagged ‘CEAs’

Leak reveals plans to slash consultant ‘costs’

By Mike Broad - 10th February 2010 1:41 pm

Foundation trusts want to stop clinical excellence awards; slash SPAs for existing and newly appointed consultants; cap pensions for higher earners and remove pensionable items; and freeze increments on incremental pay progression.

These are the provocative proposals of a leaked Foundation Trust Network (FTN) paper, which is part of the influential NHS Confederation. It’s a response to the health secretary Andy Burnham’s commitment, in December, to exploring with unions “whether we could offer frontline staff an employment guarantee locally or regionally in return for flexibility, mobility and sustained pay restraint”.

The leaked paper, obtained by public sector union Unison, seeks to identify areas for savings, warning that NHS funding could be worse that currently predicted. Flexibility and mobility are being sought because of the intention to move up to 40% of activity from secondary care into community services.

Certain proposals within the document are underlined in red. These indicate key priorities including freezing increments on incremental pay progression for two to three years; stopping CEAs; and, reducing SPAs for newly appointed consultants to one “to enable them to develop clinical skills”.

Other non-red line proposals include capping the pensions of those earning over £100,000, and removing pensionable items such as CEAs and London weighting. On programmed activities, foundation trusts are urged to reduce SPAs for existing consultants from 2.5 to 1.5 or 1 if possible. 

The FTN also calls for the NHS to make it clear that not every trainee will be offered employment from now on.

Stephen Campion, chief executive of the HCSA, said: “This leaked document shows how the boom years have turned to bust. What we need is a lot more honesty and a lot less secrecy.

“The tragedy of the NHS at the moment is that ministers are fuelling public expectations in the run up to a general election whilst NHS management is trying to figure out which services and staff they must cut to balance the books. In a service that has always depended on trust and goodwill, this paper may well destroy more than money can buy.”

In response to the health secretary’s question on being able to offer staff an employment guarantee, the FTN is non committal. It says: “The group believed that the flexibilities outlined above were now a requirement for managing the fiscal realities but that even with these it would not be possible to give job guarantees.

“In reality many of the factors that will determine the shape of future health and social care services are not under the control of providers but will be determined by commissioning decisions around pathways and competition in service provision.”

The BMA has circulated advice to its local negotiating committees on the FTN paper, describing the proposals as a ‘serious threat to the terms and conditions of service’.

While reassuring LNCs that it is a speculative discussion paper and not policy, the BMA says LNCs should not negotiate on the issues and oppose them where necessary.

On CEAs, the union says: ‘Cutting CEAs would mean a major cut to overall consultant remuneration and will impact on pensions. It must be opposed firmly in all trusts. We suggest that where this is proposed, the LNC should decline to negotiate any changes until they are negotiated nationally.’

On SPAs it says: ‘The 2003 contract makes it clear that consultants should be allocated appropriate SPA time in their job plans to enable them to carry out a range of non-clinical duties. As such a blanket reduction of SPA is inappropriate as job plans must be agreed with individual consultants.’

There are 125 foundation trusts in the NHS, representing about half of all acute trusts.

Read the leaked Foundation Trust Network’s document in full.

FTN paper on cutting consultant’s terms & conditions

By Mike Broad - 1:15 pm

This is the full text of the Foundation Trust Network (FTN) document leaked to Unison and then run originally in The Guardian:

1. Introduction

In July 2009 FTN undertook a survey of members to examine their priorities for reform of the agenda for change programme. In light of the QIPP programme and the economic realities facing the NHS over the next several years, with a number of member organisations we re-visited the topic of workforce flexibilities as a key part of foundation trust strategies for managing risk and service reconfigurations.

There is now widespread recognition that:  

• Cash will reduce in service (15-20 billion) with no third year commitment from treasury to even flat cash - so the situation could get worse than currently predicted.

• Non-pay costs are rising faster than general inflation and NI contributions at around £500m.

• The commissioning aim will be to take 30-40% activity out of secondary sector.

• There is no allowance in tariff for pay - so real reduction in funding pay bill that will not be made up by using natural wastage.

• Even using full natural wastage only produces 2.9% but will not give the shape of workforce and skill mix required to sustain patient services in new configurations.

• Redundancies are likely to be needed with the best case option being local voluntary agreements.

2. Changes Foundation Trust Employers Wish DH to Pursue

Below is the list of changes foundation trusts want to see to workforce conditions in order to sustain patient services together with an indication of the key priorities (Red Line - note that Hospital Dr has italicised these instead):

• Reform to the need to seek Treasury approval for voluntary redundancy schemes

• Negotiate redundancy payments in 12ths to ensure that the duty to mitigate losses can be implemented if employment achieved quickly in another NHS body. This would create an incentive to move quickly.

Reduce the number of pay points on A4C Bands (Red Line).

• Change Schedule k so that staff members are not able to opt back in to Agenda for Change having accepted local arrangements.

• Freeze increments on incremental pay progression for 2/3 years. Then change increments to two points - one for learners one for experienced staff (Red line).

• Agency staff - refresh the guidance and PASA agreements to drive down unreasonable costs of agency staff. Recognise that some agency (1%) will be needed. DH to review immigration requirements as these have had considerable impact on availability of quality, medical locums.

• Sick pay - 6 months full/6 months half pay unlikely to be able to negotiate change. So, local robust sick management needed. However, change sick pay so that plain rates are paid for sick pay (Red Line).

• Either abolish or extend the time (7am to 10pm) for plain rate payment on basis that many staff chose to work nights (Red line).

• End permanent injury allowance and potentially temporary injury allowance.

• Make clear NHS will not be able to offer employment to every trainee – national review of commissions.

• Tackle regulatory demands for continual expansion of statutory training: plus DH to create more e-learning products.

• Stop clinical excellence awards (Red line).

• New consultants - reduce SPAs for newly appointed consultants to enable them to develop clinical skills - suggested 9/1 (Red Line).

• Existing Consultants - reduce SPAs from 2.5 to 1.5 or 1 (if possible).

• Pensionable items - review all including London rating and CEAs.

• Stop recruitment & retention premium for all staff.

• Cap pensions for higher earners (over £100k: easier to do as part of a whole public sector review of pensions) and look at removal of other pensionable items such as London weighting and CEAs.

3. Agreed Foundation Trust Network Position on Guarantees

In our working group there was some discussion of how FTN should respond on behalf of the foundation trust community to any request for guarantees on jobs. The Group believed that the flexibilities outlined above were now a requirement for managing the fiscal realities but that even with these it would not be possible to give job guarantees. In reality, many of the factors that will determine the shape of future health and social care services are not under the control of providers but will be determined by commissioning decisions around pathways and competition in service provision.

The statement below was approved:

“Foundation Trusts do not believe that, in the economic climate and given the system and reconfiguration challenges they are facing, it will be possible to offer any guarantees that compulsory redundancies will not be required. However, all Foundation Trusts will want to fulfil their responsibilities as good employers in supporting staff to find suitable alternative employment in partnership with the local health economy as a whole.”

FTN January 2010

Time to answer the West Lothian question

By Stephen Campion, HCSA chief executive - 15th January 2010 4:38 pm

What price devolution? The ‘West Lothian question’, whether Scottish MP’s in Westminster should have the right to vote on legislation that only affects England, has yet to be satisfactorily answered.

But the controversy sparked by a member of the Scottish parliament with a petulant bee in his bonnet about wanting to do away with rewarding excellence in medical practice, saw Nicola Sturgeon, Scottish health secretary quoted as saying: “CEAs are outdated and should be reformed on a four-country basis to avoid undermining the competitiveness of any one country when recruiting consultants.”

I simply cannot follow that logic. Why is it then that Scotland has decided social care should be free in that country, but not advocated it on a “four country” basis? Why is it that Wales has abandoned car parking charges whilst others in the UK are forced to pay punitive fees to visit their local hospital? Is that really fair on a “four country basis”?

And, incidentally, why is it that Wales decided to amend the “old” contract rather than adopt the one in place in the other three countries - albeit with minor differences? Many in the other three countries are now wishing they could do the same. Even though the Wales contact is not perfect, it is less open to the flagrant abuses that are being seen elsewhere in the UK.   

Either a policy that is good enough for one country should be applied across the UK - or we have genuine devolution where devolved parliaments do what they believe is right for that country and, crucially, be accountable to those they represent for whatever legislation they introduce.

Come on! Politicians can’t have it both ways! If the Scottish health secretary really wants to antagonise consultants in Scotland then that is her decision - and risk the consequences. But to hide behind the cloak of saying that to do so would undermine the competitiveness of her own country, and should therefore be a UK initiative, makes the concept of devolution a mockery.

If Nicola Sturgeon really believes she is onto a winner then that is her decision, but why should England, Wales and Northern Ireland carry her political risk?

Clinical Excellence Awards under renewed attack

By Francesca Robinson - 13th January 2010 3:55 pm

Senior doctors have moved swiftly to defend Clinical Excellence Awards (CEAs) for NHS consultants following a renewed attack on the system.

Scottish health secretary Nicola Sturgeon has called for a freeze on CEAs for all consultants and for a UK-wide overhaul of the system.

In a letter to Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the health secretaries in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Sturgeon argues for the existing scheme to be replaced with a “fairer” system that recognises the contributions of a range of practitioners.

She has also written to Ron Amy, chairman of the Doctors’ and Dentists’ Review Body, calling for a freeze both on both the cash value of the 2010-11 CEAs and the number awarded.

She said CEAs are outdated and should be reformed on a four-country basis to avoid undermining the competitiveness of any one country when recruiting consultants.

“We are in a difficult financial climate at present and the pay of already highly-paid NHS staff should not be increased,” declares Sturgeon.

The BMA has written to the Department of Health setting out why CEAs are an important part of consultants’ remuneration.

Paul Flynn, deputy chair of the BMA’s consultants committee, said they would be lobbying very hard to persuade the DH that the time was not right for a wholesale review of the scheme. He said: “CEAs are the best way to encourage excellence and innovation and that is what they are there for. To take them away from the profession would be a demoralising blow.”

Stephen Campion, chief executive of the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association, said: “The issue is that the NHS is getting good value for money for providing recognition where it acknowledges that excellence is being achieved.”

Since 2003 the scheme had been refined by the Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards. CEAs were now allocated against national criteria and were closely monitored, said Flynn.

Ian McKee, an MSP and former GP who has been leading calls in Scotland for CEAs to be scrapped, said: “In Scotland 500 of the highest paid health service workers are sharing between them an extra £28 million a year at a time when the country is in financial crisis.

“There are a lot of people both inside and outside the medical profession who cannot understand why people receiving six figure salaries then need shed loads of money on top of that.”

He said the system, devised 61 years ago by Aneurin Bevan, to attract highly paid private doctors into the NHS, was now an anachronism and there were many different types of NHS healthcare professionals who were doing excellent work which should also be rewarded.

Around 60 academic GPs receive CEAs but McKee said a new scheme was now needed for this group to encourage bright GPs to work in academic medicine.

He said: “I might be painted as a bit of a poacher turned gamekeeper but I am a dove in this. Both Lib Dem and Labour spokesmen in Scotland have been criticising Nicola Sturgeon for not getting rid of the scheme altogether. I haven’t heard any good arguments for distinction awards.

“I don’t see that the distinction award system encourages anything other than greed quite frankly.”

Lewis Morrison, deputy chairman of the BMA’s Scottish Consultants Committee, said: “Distinction Awards not only attract the best doctors to Scotland, but by promoting innovation and research they can also bring economic benefits.”

Applying for Clinical Excellence Awards in 2009

By Mike Broad - 25th November 2009 11:07 am

Clinical Excellence Awards (CEAs) are intended to financially reward consultants who perform over and above the standard expected of their role. Consultants who can demonstrate that they’re delivering safe, high quality services - that are improving - will be most likely to succeed.

There are 12 levels of award. Levels one to eight are awarded locally on the recommendation of an employer-based committee. Levels ten to 12 (Silver, Gold and Platinum respectively) are awarded nationally on the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards (ACCEA) and its regional sub-committees. Level 9 or Bronze can be awarded locally or nationally.

The ACCEA administers the CEA scheme. There are 13 regional ACCEA sub-committees. They are based on the boundaries of the Strategic Health Authorities for the different regions.

The Clinical Excellence Awards scheme has drawn criticism in past from both those who feel the awards do not sufficiently reflect the gender and ethnic composition of the hospital doctor workforce, and those who claim it now positively discriminates.

Clinical Excellence Award amounts 

In 2007/2008, a level 1 CEA award for a consultant working ten PAs was worth £2,850 per year, compared to £73,068 for level 12.

Achievements recognised by Clinical Excellence Awards

CEAs are made to consultants who demonstrate the following behaviours: 

1. commitment to patient care and wellbeing, or improving public health.

2. sustaining high standards of both technical and clinical aspects of service whilst providing patient-focused care.

3. in their day-to-day practice demonstrate a sustained commitment to the values and goals of the NHS, by participating actively in annual job planning, observing the private practice Code of Conduct and showing a commitment to achieving agreed service objectives.

4. through active participation in clinical governance contribute to continuous improvement in service organisation and delivery.

5. embrace the principles of evidence-based practice.

6. contribute to knowledge base through research and participate actively in research governance, and are recognised as excellent teachers, trainers or managers.

7. contribute to policy-making and planning in health care.

8. make an outstanding contribution to professional leadership.

Consultants do not have to demonstrate all of these behaviours to qualify. 

Application process for Clinical Excellence Award

National Clinical Excellence Awards

The application form must be completed online at the ACCEA website. Copies of the form can be downloaded to refine responses before submission. Consultants must register to receive a user ID and a link to enter their password via email.

Then they must follow ACCEA guidance carefully. There is useful step-by-step advice.

Domain sections

The domain sections are of particular importance, giving consultants the opportunity to highlight their achievements over and above contractual obligations. The assessment of the application depends upon it. Consultants must draw attention to the most important examples of work on a local, national or international level. All the domains need to be completed.

Domain one concerns the delivery of a high quality service. Consultants must give evidence of their achievements in delivering a service which is safe, quality assured and where opportunities for improvement are consistently sought and implemented. This could for example cover exemplary standards in delivering professional commitments, dealing with patients or staff, developing clinical governance or performing a leadership role.

Domain two concerns the development of a high quality service. Consultants need to show how they have significantly enhanced clinical effectiveness (quality, safety and cost effectiveness) of local or wider services. Where possible, consultants must give audit or research evidence showing they have improved effective clinical outcomes.

Domain three concerns leadership and managing a high quality service. Consultants need to provide evidence of how they have made a substantial personal contribution to managing a local service, or national or international health policy development. Consultants should also list any posts they have held, including information about any change management programmes that have been led with evidence that it has improved service effectiveness or efficiency.

Domain four concerns research and innovation. This section of the form should be used to outline research aims and activity. This should take up one line. On a separate line, detail what you have achieved to date and what you hope to achieve, with supporting evidence.

Domain five is about teaching and training. For some applicants, teaching and training will form a major part of their contribution to the NHS, over and above contractual obligations. Evidence should be given of excellence that relates to quality of teaching; leadership and innovation in teaching; scholarship, evaluation and research contributing to national or international leadership, including presentations, lectures and publications; institutional success in quality assessment orders; personal commitment to developing teaching skills; significant teaching commitment.

Local Clinical Excellence Awards

Complete the same form. However, rather than filling in the form online, consultants need to download it from the ACCEA website before completing it. They will not need to log-in and complete the form on-line. When all parts of the form have been completed, it should be passed to the trust administrator, along with the employer’s statement if the consultant is including one, plus any citations. Local committees should be familiar with the consultants work and may not need citations when assessing an application so it is optional. 

Dos and don’ts of applying for a Clinical Excellence Award

Dos

1. read the available guidance.

2. write names of societies, groups, etc in full.

3. remain within box word limits.

4. use a new line for each entry, giving dates for the activities.

5. on national awards, consultants must specify which trust or organisation they work at so the application is considered by the right sub-committee.

6. save work at least every 20 minutes to avoid running out of time and losing unsaved work.

7. include an employer’s statement and do not submit incomplete forms.

8. consultants should not sign applications electronically, as this may corrupt the forms.

9. consultants must inform ACCEA on the application form of any current or recently concluded complaints against them. ACCEA assumes a doctor is innocent unless proven guilty.

Don’ts

1. don’t change the font or its size when completing your application - they won’t be considered.

2. don’t leave your application until the eleventh hour.

3. don’t canvass locally, it can disqualify the applicant.

4. deliberate falsification can lead to disciplinary action.

Recent recipients of national Clinical Excellence Awards

To see a list of doctors who received a national CEA in 2007 visit:

Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum

Related Clinical Excellence Award content

Official guidance

2008 Annual report on CEA

BMA presentation on CEAs

ACCEA newsletter for consultants: November 2008

Merit awards defended against speculation

By Francesca Robinson - 29th October 2009 1:50 am

A sustained attack on consultants’ distinction awards in Scotland has been dismissed as ill informed by doctors’ leaders.

Doctors’ representatives in England say they have no fears that the government would attempt to abolish the Clinical Excellence Awards, negotiated as part of consultants’ remuneration.

In Scotland, Dr Ian Mckee a Scottish National Party MSP and a former GP, has called for reform of the Scottish system of distinction awards for senior doctors. 

He has questioned the need for the Scottish SNP Government to set aside £30 million for next year’s awards. “If consultants are getting the equivalent of a junior government minister’s salary on top of their own salary this latest round of awards does look bit off,” he said.

He has called for the awards to be frozen in the short term. Other politicians have called for the system to be scrapped.

Stephen Campion, chief executive of the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association, said: “It is a very real worry that ill informed speculation and comment will be made on anything that could remotely be seen to be a bonus because that is the political and economic climate that we are currently working in. 

“But the important thing to understand is that CEAs are not a bonus. A bonus is based on profit share while the CEAs are paid to recognise the work such as teaching and research that consultants do which is of added value and benefit to the NHS.”

For 2009/10, a level one CEA was worth £2,957 while the highest level 12 (or platinum) award was £75,796.

Paul Flynn, deputy chairman of the BMA’s consultants committee, said: “At the moment both ourselves and the Department of Health through the Advisory Committee on Clinical Excellence Awards recognise that CEAs reward excellence among consultants.

“The scheme is part and parcel of consultants’ remuneration and if the government wanted to change that we would expect them to open negotiations with us. I don’t believe the system in England is under threat.”

A Scottish government spokesman said that in evidence to the pay review body this year they had recommended a pay freeze for consultants and no uplift to the amount payable as individual distinction awards.

A spokesman for the BMA in Scotland said: “Scotland needs to retain the distinction awards system in order to encourage innovation and to prevent consultants from leaving to work south of the border where they can traditionally earn more.”

Read more on Clinical Excellence Awards.

Breaking down the barriers to female medical leadership

By Mike Broad - 16th October 2009 6:12 pm

A new report, called Women Doctors: Making a Difference, identifies the barriers preventing female doctors from reaching senior positions and sets out how to address them.

It’s been produced by the National Working Group on Women in Medicine, which was set up in the wake of the Chief Medical Officer’s annual report in 2006. Sir Liam Donaldson’s report identified a shortage of women in leadership roles in the medical profession despite outnumbering men as medical undergraduates.

Donaldson expressed support for the report’s recommendations and said the Department of Health would consider each of them. Here’s a summary of the key recommendations:

1. Improve access to mentoring and career advice

In the next round of contract negotiation there should be an explicit facility for appropriately trained and skilled doctors (usually consultants) to undertake mentoring or career counselling as a programmed activity within their job plan.

To facilitate accessing mentoring or career management support, the future commissioners of medical education should maintain a register of all doctors who are skilled and are willing to undertake these tasks and make it more accessible to other doctors.

2. Encouraging women in leadership

Appointments to NHS, academic and clinical committees and boards should be advertised widely and have a transparent and democratic process rather than simply an appointment by nomination.

Committees should be encouraged to develop their ways of working to enable greater participation by doctors who are parents or carers.

There should be increased access for women to the committees and boards of major medical institutions, including the medical schools, postgraduate deaneries, medical royal colleges, NHS trusts and other NHS bodies. The Equality and Human Rights Commission should consider auditing the appointments process for all such posts.

3. Improve access to part-time working and flexible training

The postgraduate deaneries should maintain a list of doctors wishing to train part time in a slotshare arrangement.

NHS Employers should develop guidance for meeting the costs of continuing professional development, including for those who are working less than full time.

The development of credentialling should be expedited, and there should be full recognition by the medical Royal Colleges that time alone does not indicate competence to practise independently.

The aspirational quota for part-time training should be abandoned in favour of a needs-assessed availability by strategic health authorities (SHAs). The newly formed Centre for Workforce Intelligence should be commissioned by each SHA to provide this needs assessment on a regional basis, and provision should be made to meet it.

4. Ensure that the arrangements for revalidation are clear and explicit

The GMC and the appropriate medical royal colleges should ensure that they have a clear set of re-licensing and recertification standards and assessment processes in place for doctors who have taken time out of training or the profession to return to work.

Responsible officers should coordinate refresher training for those who have taken time out of training to meet these standards. There should be funding for this within the NHS budget.

Trusts should offer ‘back-to-work’ and ‘taster’ sessions where those who have taken a career break can shadow working doctors to re-familiarise the doctor with procedures and work patterns, so that they are confident on return.

5. Women should be encouraged to apply for the Clinical Excellence Awards

The Advisory Committee for Clinical Excellence Awards (ACCEA) should provide greater feedback to applicants and advice as to where additional development might be necessary, and develop a network of mentors.

Selection panels should be gender balanced wherever possible; due consideration should be given to part time applicants, and ACCEA’s processes should be monitored for gender equality.

6. Ensure that the medical workforce planning apparatus takes account of the increasing number of women in the medical profession

NHS Medical Education England (NHS MEE) and the Centre for Workforce Intelligence should ensure that workforce models for the future clearly delineate the effect of a rising number of women in the workforce so that appropriate advice for the workforce planning apparatus can be given.

7. Improve access to childcare

The Conference of Postgraduate Medical Deans and the Department of Health should consider whether the model such as that in place in the North Western Deanery, which commissions a lead employer for all specialty trainees in the deanery, would be a practical and desirable model in the new education commissioner/provider landscape. The additional benefit of better facilitating access to government assistance for maternity benefits and childcare of this model is clear.

Postgraduate deaneries or their lead employers should plan ahead for the childcare needs of their trainees and facilitate arrangements between a trainee and the trusts during their rotation for access to childcare provision.

Trusts should appoint a childcare coordinator within their human resources department if they have not yet done so. Childcare coordinators should develop internet resources to act as both an information resource and message boards on local childcare options, including emergency cover.

Hospital-based childcare should move to extended opening hours.

The DoH should explore the costs and benefits of doctors who are parents paying for full-time or part-time childcare as a value-for-money solution for enabling doctors to progress their careers. On the basis of this analysis the DoH should submit a case to the Treasury to allow doctors to pay for childcare from their gross earnings. In addition, it should establish whether any central funding might be available for childcare assistance.

8. Improve support for carers

All postgraduate deaneries or their nominated lead employers and NHS trusts should have a lead person responsible for supporting carers.

9. Strenuous efforts should be made to ensure that these recommendations are enacted through the identification of champions

Trusts should identify a non-executive director to have responsibility at a local level for improving working patterns, giving advice and handling complaints. The director should work closely with a lead consultant for workforce planning.

Read the full report.

Flinty resolve needed to clean up MPs’ expenses

By Mr Jerry Nelson - 14th June 2009 7:38 pm

Why are MPs such an arrogant, conniving, venal, workshy, badly dressed bunch of tossers? Half of them didn’t even do to public school for arse’s sake!

Yet they laud it over us in their cheap suits and smarmy hairstyles, sticking their little piggy snouts in the taxpayers’ trough so they can dredge their moats and watch their wank movies and flip their houses.

Mind you that Caroline Flint is a bit of alright…

Phwoar! She could come and MINISTER my housing any day; I’d have her on my FRONT BENCH and introduce her to my HONOURABLE MEMBER…

(Cough).

Sorry, where was I? Oh, yeah. MPs. Anyway, there’s all this talk about how they’re going to sort out the expenses business. How can we properly remunerate our elective representatives? How can we ensure that talent and hard work is rewarded?

Well, I hate to say it, but the answer is staring us all in the face.

There is a scheme for rewarding a group of public servants that is fair, equitable, open, completely non-corrupt, and administered without fear or favour and without any regard for personal gain or one-upmanship, and definitely not via any kind of back-scratching old boy’s network, rewarding those who work the hardest for the public good, and never the skivers.

That’s right, we should make our MPs apply for Clinical Excellence Merit Discretionary Points Awards, or whatever those lumps of cash we get are called….

Genius or what?

(That reminds me, I’ve got a case of claret to send to Professor Pimbley-Pombley, chair of our local committee. I’m definitely feeling lucky this year…)

Hospital doctors’ pay scales for 2009/2010

By Mike Broad - 27th May 2009 4:12 pm

The government takes pay advice from the Doctors’ and Dentists’ Review Body (DDRB) before announcing the pay awards in April. The pay body was set up in 1971 and its reviews are supposedly independent. It has, however, been repeatedly criticised for favoring the government’s position over that of the profession.

The pay body considers the following factors when making its recommendations: the need to recruit, retain and motivate doctors; regional variations in labour markets; the funds available to the health departments in the UK; the government’s inflation target, and the overall strategy that the NHS should place patients at the heart of all it does. It also takes account of the economic and other evidence submitted by the government, staff and professional representatives.

2009/2010 pay award for hospital doctors

The pay award, as recommended by the review body, was a base increase of 1.5% to doctors’ national salary scales. This covers junior doctors, staff and associate specialist grade doctors, consultants and other salaried doctors including salaried GPs. London weighting remains at £2,162 per year for doctors non-resident in hospital and £602 for residents.

Consultant pay 2009/2010

From April 2009, the salary scales for consultants on the new contract (in England and Scotland) will be:

On transfer to 2003 contract for a new consultant £74,504

One year on £76,837

Two years on £79,170

Three years on £81,502

Four years on £83,829

Nine years on £89,370

Fourteen years on £94,911

Nineteen years after transfer £100,446

Clinical Excellence Awards for consultants:

Level 1 £2,957

Level 2 £5,914

Level 3 £8,871

Level 4 £11,828

Level 5 £14,785

Level 6 £17,742

Level 7 £23,656

Level 8 £29,570

Bronze/Level 9 £35,484

Silver/Level 10 £46,644

Gold/Level 11 £58,305

Platinum/Level 12 £75,796

More on Clinical Excellence Awards

Specialty doctors’ pay

Doctors in the new specialty doctor grade earn between £36,443 and £67,959 per year depending on seniority.

Listings of all the doctors’ salary scales for 2009/2010.

Dispute over pay awards for hospital doctors

In 2008/2009, the pay increase to doctors’ national pay scales was 2.2%, as recommended by the review body. In contrast, in January 2008, the Retail Price Index – an accurate measure of inflation – stood at 4.1%. The BMA advised pay increases of between 3.6% and 4.3% for the different groups it represents.

In recent years, the media have been less than sympathetic to the pay claims of the medical profession, and the value of GP pay rises in particular have come under scrutiny.

In 2009/2010, the pay increase to doctors’ national pay scales was 1.5%, as recommended by the review body. The BMA criticised the pay body report for lacking clarity on how the figure was arrived at, given that both the NHS Employers’ and Health Department’s evidence suggested a 2% pay rise for doctors was affordable.

The BMA claims that all the evidence appears to have been discounted and the pay body drew its own conclusions on the affordability of the doctors’ pay round. Doctors’ representatives are currently exploring alternatives to submitting evidence to the pay body.