
Hospitals make record number of requests for doctors to work during strikes, claims union
The BMA said hospitals had asked for more than 125 resident doctors to come off the picket lines during the walkout.
The union has claimed some of those pleas were made inappropriately and had to be refused, while those that had been granted had to be revoked.
It also said there had been incidents where patient safety was at risk due to trusts not having enough staff to cover emergency care.
Resident doctors are taking part in a strike over pay, which began on Friday, 25 July and will end at 7am on Wednesday.
The BMA's resident doctors committee has asked the government for a 29 per cent pay increase to address what it says has been a more than 20 per cent erosion of their pay since 2008. However, talks between doctors and health secretary Wes Streeting broke down last week and failed to avert strike action.
Last week, NHS England chiefs told hospital leaders they must maintain elective care during the strikes, whereas during previous rounds, widespread cancellations took place.
During strikes, employers can request 'derogations', in which a union can grant permission for a doctor or multiple doctors to come into work on strike days.
NHS England's figures as of Monday show 58 requests for 'derogations' had been made, eight had been approved, 23 had been declined, 15 had been withdrawn, and some are still pending a decision. There has so far been a record number of approvals compared to previous strike rounds, according to NHS data.
Over the weekend, the BMA claimed one hospital, in Sheffield, had asked for resident doctors to come in as its consultants were not able to use the trust's new electronic records system.
The union also posted on X, claiming it had agreed to let a doctor return to work within the obstetric department at Queens Medical Centre, run by Nottingham University Hospitals Trust.
Other trusts cited by the union include Lewisham and St George's Hospitals in London.
In a message to resident doctors on Sunday, the BMA resident doctors' committee said: 'This dispute had exposed a small number of trusts where they have planned as if strikes were not even happening. We have received a record number of derogation requests this set of strikes. This is because NHS England has issued instructions to Trusts to try to keep elective activity open, despite our warnings of the risks to patient safety.'
The message claimed the BMA has received 47 derogation requests from NHS England and that these contained requests for 125 resident doctors to return to work to cover gaps.
Following requests, the BMA said it had granted 16 doctors permission to go back to work. It said the trusts where derogations were revoked were either 'misinformed about their staffing, or deliberately misled' the BMA.
Other 'inappropriate' derogations the BMA said it had been asked for included where trusts planned for a full rota of resident doctors, and then were 'caught out when resident doctors went on strike'.
Multiple trusts had 'prioritised elective activity over the safety of more urgent patients', the BMA claimed.
It said due to 'poor timing of requests' there have been instances where patients' safety has been at risk, 'with not enough doctors to ensure emergency care,' which has led to 'last-minute' requests for doctors.
Ahead of the strikes, the BMA was criticised for advising resident doctors against informing their employers of their plans to strike.
In a rare intervention, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges published a statement to the BMA warning that this would risk patient safety.
NHS England was approached for comment.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Leader Live
25 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Former nurse loses legal challenge over registration of private gender clinic
Susan Evans and a mother known as XX took legal action against the Care Quality Commission (CQC) over its decision to register the Gender Plus Hormone Clinic (GPHC) in Birmingham in January last year. The two also challenged the regulator's decision last December to continue the clinic's registration and to allow it to prescribe cross-sex hormone treatment to 16 and 17-year-olds without conditions. The clinic, which was rated outstanding by the watchdog last year, treats people aged 16 and older, including through prescribing gender-affirming – masculinising or feminising – hormones, but, in line with the NHS, does not prescribe puberty blockers. Lawyers for the women told a hearing in June that the CQC had acted 'irrationally' and made decisions that were 'simply not open to it', given the NHS's stance on hormone treatment for children aged 16 and 17 in light of the Cass Review. The CQC and GPHC opposed the challenge, with barristers telling the hearing in London that the legal challenge was 'fatally flawed' and the clinic was found to be 'committed to the safety and best interests of its patients'. In a ruling on Thursday, Mrs Justice Eady dismissed the claim, saying there was 'no irrationality in the decisions reached' and they were within the 'rational range' of options available to the watchdog. Hormone treatment was previously provided on the NHS at the now-closed Gender Identity Development Service (Gids) run by Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, where Ms Evans worked. But a review published by Baroness Cass in April last year said 'extreme caution' should be demonstrated when deciding to prescribe the treatment to 16 and 17-year-olds, and that there should be 'clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18'. The NHS has opened three specialist children's gender clinics and has plans for a further five covering the seven NHS regions in England by the end of 2026, but has said that all recommendations for hormone interventions must be endorsed by a national multi-disciplinary team (MDT). It is understood that the MDT has not yet received any recommendations for hormone treatment for 16 and 17-year-olds since the Cass Review. GPHC was set up by Dr Aidan Kelly and is led by nurse consultant Paul Carruthers, who both worked at Gids, and has previously said it primarily treats patients aged between 16 and 25, using its own MDT. Tom Cross KC, for Ms Evans and XX, said in written submissions that there were 'a number of key differences' between GPHC and NHS safeguards, including that referrals to the former came from Dr Kelly's company, Kelly Psychology, which is unregulated. He said in court that the CQC had 'not factored in' parts of the treatment process on the NHS, which 'serve as important safeguards' and were 'obviously material'. He said consideration of these points would have led to the treatment of under-18s being halted. Jamie Burton KC, for the CQC, said that there was 'ample evidence' that Kelly Psychology 'did not pose an unacceptable risk' to patients, and that a 'significant number' of those assessed by the company were not referred for treatment at GPHC. The court was told that the CQC found no evidence of 'improper decision making or anything that might flag a concern', and that the CQC 'had regard' to NHS processes. Peter Mant KC, for Gender Plus Healthcare Limited, said that there was no legal requirement for a private provider to mirror NHS care and that the clinic's model was 'entirely consistent' with the Cass Review and NHS policy. In a 64-page ruling, Mrs Justice Eady said: 'Accepting that (GPHC) could neither access the NHS national MDT nor precisely replicate it, but keeping in mind the purpose of the NHS model, I cannot say that the CQC's finding of sufficient alignment was outside the reasonable range of conclusions open to it.' She continued: 'The range was set by reference to the substance that underpinned the NHS structures, not merely the choices made as to the form that those structures should take. 'Applying that approach, as I am satisfied the CQC did, the decisions reached fall within the rational range, and the CQC was entitled to conclude that no further conditions were required.' A CQC spokesperson said: 'We are pleased that today's ruling recognises CQC's regulatory expertise. 'It also supports the systems and processes at CQC that put the needs of people using services at their heart and helps to ensure that people receive care and treatment in a safe way.' Dr Kelly said he was 'absolutely delighted' at the judgment, with Mr Carruthers stating that the ruling 'further demonstrates the diligence and integrity of our work'. Ms Evans said she was 'extremely disappointed' by the ruling and believed that the CQC's decision was 'irrational and highly risky', while XX said: 'To say I am disappointed is an understatement.'


Telegraph
26 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Vaccinate your children, parents urged amid surge in measles
Parents have been urged to vaccinate their children during the summer holidays amid a global surge in measles. The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) fears cases could rise rapidly once the new school term begins in September, with its latest data showing that there have been 145 cases since the last report on July 3. That brings the total since Jan 1 to 674 cases. London and the North West are driving the increase, the agency said, with the majority of infections in children aged under 10. Almost half (48 per cent) of the 674 cases for the year so far have been in London, with 16 per cent in the North West and 10 per cent in the east of England. It comes amid a global rise in measles over the past year, and the UKHSA is concerned that travel during the summer holidays could lead to increased cases in England when the new school term begins. Measles is highly infectious and can lead to serious complications. People with the infection have cold and flu-like symptoms, with a rash appearing a few days later.


Times
an hour ago
- Times
TikTok's ‘sun tattoo' trend prompts skin cancer warning
The French health minister has issued a plea to teenagers to stop burning 'sun tattoos' on to their skin, a social media trend that has gone viral this summer. Young people have been posting videos on TikTok and Instagram showing shapes, including flowers, hearts or lettering, on their skin where they have applied small amounts of sunscreen. The patterns contrast with the surrounding burnt or tanned skin, which they have deliberately left unprotected. Doctors are horrified and Yannick Neuder, the health minister who is a cardiologist by training, has posted his own video on social media warning that the practice could cause serious skin damage or cancer in later life. 'Your skin is your life and you've only got one. Don't sacrifice it for 30 seconds of buzz [by] deliberately burning your skin for a TikTok or Instagram video,' he said. Many observers were sceptical, however, that the video, in which the bespectacled 56-year-old minister appears in a suit and tie, would succeed in influencing teenagers. In July and August, French beaches are packed with sunbathers enjoying les grandes vacances despite repeated warnings by the national health authority that 'there is no such thing as a healthy tan'. Another harmful social media trend gaining popularity among young people in France this summer is applying olive oil and lemon juice to accelerate tanning. 'This can lead to second-degree burns, permanent dark spots or wrinkles because it provides no protection and can even increase the effect of UV rays,' Dr Gérald Kierzek said. France reports up to 250,000 cases of skin cancer a year according to Neuder, who warned that even factor 50 sunscreen does not block all harmful UV. He advised wearing a wide-brimmed hat, specially treated clothing to protect against UV, and avoiding exposure when the sun is at its strongest. Dr Aamer Khan of the Harley Street Skin Clinic in London said: 'With melanoma cases among the most common in the UK, it's important that we educate people on the risks of taking part in these trends. Each time you're sunburnt, your chances of skin cancer multiply. 'What most people are unaware of is that your skin changing colour through the tanning process is actually a warning sign from your body, as it produces melanin in order to prevent further UV damage.'