Intended for healthcare professionals

  1. Research
  2. General practitioners'...
  3. General practitioners' perceptions of sharing workload in group practices: qualitative study
Primary Care

General practitioners' perceptions of sharing workload in group practices: qualitative study

BMJ 2004; 329 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38173.532465.7C (Published 12 August 2004) Cite this as: BMJ 2004;329:381
  1. Ruben Branson, general practitioner associate1,
  2. David Armstrong (david.armstrong{at}kcl.ac.uk), reader in medical sociology1
  1. 1 Department of General Practice, King's College London, London SE11 6SP
  1. Correspondence to: D Armstrong
  • Accepted 14 June 2004

Abstract

Objective To explore general practitioners' beliefs and experiences of distribution of workload and teamwork between doctors in general practice.

Design Qualitative semistructured interview study.

Setting South London.

Participants 18 general practitioners from 11 practices.

Main outcome measures Perceptions and experiences of distribution of workload and teamwork between doctors.

Results Equitable distribution of workload was a common concern among general practitioners in group practices. Several ways of addressing the problem were identified, including relying on trust, creating systems of working based on explicit rules such as points' systems, and improving communication. Improvement of communication was hampered by the taboo nature of the problem.

Conclusion Resentment about perceived inequalities in workload places a further burden on general practices. The issue of working together warrants further support.

Footnotes

  • This study derives from an MSc in general practice carried out at Guy's, King's, and St Thomas's School of Medicine. We thank the general practitioners who took part.

  • Contributors RB and DA devised the study, carried out the analysis, and wrote the paper. RB collected the data. DA will act as guarantor for the paper.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethical approval King's College Hospital research ethics committee.

  • Accepted 14 June 2004
View Full Text
Back to top