What will a primary care led NHS mean for GP workload? the problem of the lack of an evidence baseBMJ 1997; 314 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7090.1337 (Published 03 May 1997) Cite this as: BMJ 1997;314:1337
- a National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL
- Correspondence to: Ms L Pedersen LPEDERS@fs1.cpcr.man.ac.uk
Ongoing negotiations on the general practitioner contract raise the question of remunerating general practitioners for increased workload resulting from the shift from secondary to primary care. A review of the literature shows that there is little evidence on whether a shift of services from secondary to primary care is responsible for general practitioners' increased workload, and scope for making generalisations is limited. The implication is that general practitioners have little more than anecdotal evidence to support their claims of greatly increased workloads, and there is insufficient evidence to make informed decisions about remunerating general practitioners for the extra work resulting from the changes. Lack of evidence does not, however, mean that there is no problem with workload. It will be increasingly important to identify mechanisms for ensuring that resources follow workload.
Log in using your username and password
Log in through your institution
Register for a free trial to thebmj.com to receive unlimited access to all content on thebmj.com for 14 days.
Sign up for a free trial