Intended for healthcare professionals

  1. News & Views
  2. Having a named doctor...
  3. Having a named doctor in general practice is not enough to improve continuity of care
Letters Named GP and continuity of care

Having a named doctor in general practice is not enough to improve continuity of care

BMJ 2019; 367 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6106 (Published 24 October 2019) Cite this as: BMJ 2019;367:l6106

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.

Re: Having a named doctor in general practice is not enough to improve continuity of care

I write as a patient, retired doctor.

Did you know, originally in the NHS and the predecessor regime, patients registered with a GP? Not with a practice. In 1974, my family and I registered with the newest partner, whose senior partner was recommended to me. The senior partner said that we could see any GP In the partnership. The telephone numbers of all the GPs were in the telephone book.

The senior partner also said that HE would always be available if needed,

All went well.

Then the Govt introduced a named GP scheme, without giving the patient any choice. A named GP was imposed.

Next, the Govt introduced Clinical Commissioning Groups.

Now the computer tells me to make an appt with a Health Care Assistant - without a word with the GP who last saw me.

This is not general practice. This is computer practice churning out how many million patients were seen.

And the Royal College of General Practitioners has clearly swallowed it. Hook, line and sinker.

Competing interests: No competing interests

29 October 2019
JK Anand
Retired doctor
Free spirit
Pax Britannica

Re: Having a named doctor in general practice is not enough to improve continuity of care

Having a named GP is core to achieving continuity, but it does require the GP or relevant healthcare lead to actively take responsibility for the patient, and their problems, with follow up where appropriate.

The Health foundation programme, supported by the RCGP, is looking at the effectiveness of various approaches to improve continuity for half a million patients across five site in England, including the Bristol and Exeter sites mentioned.

You can read about the programme, https://bit.ly/2PrBJV1 , hear about the evidence and tips for continuity on the next webinar, https://sforce.co/31YSAkp, join a community site for continuity, https://bit.ly/31S4gWo , or use a toolkit for continuity of care in your own practice, https://bit.ly/2MVTmL2 .

Competing interests: Mark Rickenbach is funded as a Clinical Champion for Continuity of Care by the RCGP

29 October 2019
Mark Alan Rickenbach
GP
Professor
Park and St Francis Surgery, Pilgrims Close, Valley Park, Chandlers Ford, Eastleigh SO53 4ST
Back to top