Finally, GPs can decide if the scheme by Government to improve face-toface appointments will be pursued. 

But the British Medical Association — which balloted thousands of family doctors — won’t share the results with the public.

MailOnline was informed by the union that there were no immediate plans to release the results from the indicative poll, as it ‘is not necessary’.

Political commentators have called the union a’militant’. The union said that it would review the results and decide next steps. This could include another ballot for taking action. 

If the industrial action goes ahead, it would be the first time that medics have acted since 2005 when they went on strike against changes in their contracts.

According to the ballot proposals, patients would not be eligible for Covid exemption certificates from GPs who took part in the vote.

The move was prompted by a £250million package of measures to get patients more in-person consultations with GPs. Sajid Javid had an action plan that would essentially ‘name-and shame’ poor performing surgeries.

Family doctors were accused by critics of having an ‘inbelligerent’ attitude. They said that refusing to release the results must indicate the ballot was not conclusive. 

Some four in ten appointments are still not being carried out face-to-face, figures showed. The above graph shows the proportion of appointments that have been face-to-face since September two years ago

According to figures, four-in-ten appointments do not take place face-to-face. This graph displays the percentage of face-to-face appointments since September 2002.

The average number of sessions GPs works in a day have gone down over the last decade while their wage growth has gone up. In 2012 the average GP worked 7.3 sessions a week but this has now fallen to 6.6 a week, the equivalent of just over three days of work a week. In the same period the average GP income went up by more than £6,000. A GP's daily work is divided into sessions. According to the NHS, a full-time GP works 8 sessions a week, formed of two sessions a day, generally starting at 8am and finishing at 6.30pm, though these hours can vary. However, despite session data suggesting GPs are working less, doctors dismissed the notion they were part-time workers and said the average doctor still works 40 hours per work — just split into fewer sessions

While the number of sessions doctors work per day has declined over the last decade, their wages have increased. The average GP used to work 7.3 hours per week in 2012, but that has dropped to 6.6 sessions per week. This is equivalent to just under three days of work per week. In the same period the average GP income went up by more than £6,000. The daily work of a GP is broken down into sessions. The NHS states that a full-time GP typically works eight sessions per week. These sessions are usually two hours each and start at 8am. They finish at 6:30pm. However, these hours may vary. However, despite session data suggesting GPs are working less, doctors dismissed the notion they were part-time workers and said the average doctor still works 40 hours per work — just split into fewer sessions

A BMA spokesperson told MailOnline: ‘The results of the indicative ballot of GP practices in England – asking whether they would be willing to take action in four key areas – will be considered in detail. 

“There is not an immediate plan to make these available publically as it does not seem necessary.”

A&E patients are waiting up to 13 HOURS for a bed as health bosses warn health service faces toughest winter ever — but NHS England boss says it needs more staff not cash 

A&E patients are having to wait more than 12 hours for a bed because emergency departments are so overwhelmed, medics warned today.

Health leaders say the NHS is facing its toughest winter ever due to crippling staff shortages, pandemic backlogs and unprecedented demand. 

Dr Chris Gibbons, a clinician at Newcastle’s Royal Victoria Infirmary, said it had ‘become very normal’ for patients to wait seven hours for a bed in A&E, and ‘up to 12 or 13 hours on occasion’.  

Shocking stats show more than 7,000 patients waited 12-plus hours to be seen in A&E in October — more than triple the number in the same month pre-Covid. 

Amanda Pritchard, NHS England’s boss, warned that things would get worse before getting better.

She suggested the health service needed more doctors and nurses — not more cash — to address the deepening crisis, adding that ‘nothing works without staff’.

Dr Gibbons said that there were 20-25 percent more people than usual in autumn 2019, making it a busier time.

“That has been combined with bed capacity. We’ve struggled filling gaps from sickness or isolation. Bed closures have resulted because of infections like Covid.

“It has led to huge crowds at the front door and insufficient capacity for emergency admissions.

“We admit on average between 20 and 25 additional patients per day to the trust, which is a significant increase from what we admitted two years ago.”

This is in light of increasing reports that patients are dying at the back of ambulances or in waiting rooms in hospitals due to handover delays.

In response to the Government’s plans to increase face-to-face appointments, doctors were asked to vote in an indicative poll. 

The respondents were asked if they would consent to the government collecting data that could be used for identifying how many patients each practice sees face-to-face.

The Medics were asked whether they would refuse to write letters to patients exempted from the Covid vaccine. This could be for workers in unjabbed homes who require this for their job. This same rule applies from April to NHS staff.

A ballot was conducted to see if doctors would refuse to submit their income to the rules that lead to the publishing of GPs with highest salaries.

The requirement, due to come into effect next month, would force doctors making more than £150,000 per year from the NHS to have their earnings revealed alongside their name.

This, according to the BMA was of no benefit for patients or their care.

MailOnline was informed by Dennis Reed of Silver Voices Campaign Group, that the BMA has a belligerent attitude. They would publish a result if it were overwhelmingly positive. 

You do the indicative ballots because you want to inform Government that “this is how our members say it, but you don’t want to us to conduct a formal vote, so let’s get to talking.” 

“I don’t see why the results should not be published, except that it isn’t conclusive.

“I don’t see why they wouldn’t keep the result of the vote quiet, unless it was detrimental to their cause.” 

Reed stated that he had never heard of any other group refusing to publish results from a vote. 

It’s not clear for members. They must be told by the BMA that the results would not get out. 

According to him, the next step for the union should be to meet with the Government to try and resolve their differences. 

Reed said that Doctors and Government were shouting across a gap which is causing patients to fall through. 

“They might want to try a different approach.”

MailOnline spoke with Harry Fone, the campaign manager of TaxPayers’ Alliance: “Taxpayers are eager to learn the results from these ballots because strike action could potentially have a huge impact on healthcare provision. 

“Britists pay more taxes than ever before to help fund public services. They deserve top-quality care.”

Face-to face appointments in England were still below pre-pandemic levels. Despite Covid restrictions being lifted in July, this led to the conflict between Government and doctors. 

Before the pandemic eight out of ten appointments took place in GP practices. In September, however, the number was six. 

While doctors claim that virtual consultations are preferred by some patients because it is more convenient, reports indicate that vulnerable persons are not receiving the help they require. 

The death toll could be attributed to remote visits, according the coroners. 

Health Secretary Sajid Javid subsequently unveiled a £250million package of measures to get patients more in-person consultations with GPs, including a controversial proposal that would effectively ‘name and shame’ underperforming surgeries. 

However, medics found the idea ‘unfair’, demoralizing and unjustifiable. Unions warn it could lead to a tsunami of retirements.