New GP contract deal: a game changer for primary care?
BMJ 2019; 364 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l531 (Published 01 February 2019) Cite this as: BMJ 2019;364:l531
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
If the new contract was intended to improve recruitment and retention of GPs I doubt this will be achieved. Instead it appears that the aspiration to increase the number of GPs has been given up on. Most GPs yearn for their workload to reduce but not having to become involved in more bureaucracy in employing 20,000 social prescribers, pharmacists and physiotherapists. Most of the work done by these workers isn’t something GPs would feel should be part of their remit in any case. More importantly the responsibility and liability of the work done by these 20,000 workers will fall on GPs. Indemnity being paid for by the NHS won’t be any consolation as the money is being deducted from the global sum. It’s the equivalent of being told that the NHS will pay for your car insurance but deduct it from your salary; this wouldn’t affect your safety in a car or your confidence in driving it. Fundamental reform of the Medical Negligence process and complaints procedures is required. Also, the contract does nothing to reduce demand or encourage patients to use the service more responsibly according to need and not want.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: New GP contract deal: a game changer for primary care?
Dear Sir/Madam,
The recent publication of the partnership review highlights some of the issues with the current partnership model. Whilst some interesting recommendations are suggested, the report also serves as a reminder of what is fundamentally wrong with GP partnership in the 21st century.
In an attempt to stave off private providers and hospital trusts, there has been a move to work in collaboration with other practices in localities and federations. Some have been more successful than others. However, most if not all of these, are underpinned by an unwavering desire to maintain individual practice identity, and thus preserve the autonomy of partners. For me, this is a barrier to true integration. The demographics and mobility of the population is changing across the country, with a change in patient need and expectations. Holding onto a "cottage industry" approach to general practice is a barrier to progress.
I would argue that those holding onto this false panacea are either blinkered by nostalgia and possibly also the financial control that being a small business contract holder offers. For example, a partnership can make more money by hiring fewer doctors. This then puts pressure on other services e.g. Accident and Emergency & Urgent Care Centres, as patients cannot get an appointment to see the GP. Perhaps we could overlook this in the past, but not now. The needs of individual partners or partnerships cannot be put ahead of that of patients and the NHS as a viable entity.
The partnership review reads like a final rallying call from a general to their troops knowing the inevitability of defeat. However, I would argue that doing away with the current partnership model is not defeat, rather progress and evolution that is needed to save general practice and arguably the NHS, of which we are the bedrock.
Yours faithfully
Dr.Milan Dagli, MPharm, MB ChB, MRCGP, PGCert
Pinner, Middlesex
Competing interests: No competing interests