This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

Gold, incentives and meh

'More patients should be offered statins if they want them'

Prominent GP academic Professor Richard Hobbs speaks to Caroline Price about why he agrees with the new primary prevention threshold for statins and how GPs can encourage more students into general practice.

The calm, airy offices of Oxford University’s Primary Care Health Sciences department, nestled in the heart of the ‘city of dreaming spires’, seem a long way from the hectic day-to-day business of general practice.

Department head Professor Richard Hobbs has carved out a highly distinguished academic career that has seen him publish numerous articles, including some of the most influential research in cardiovascular medicine, oversee national and international guidelines and advise the Government on NHS clinical policy.  

Professor Hobbs - online

Yet, despite being one of the most influential academics in the land, Professor Hobbs is still a jobbing GP, practicing part-time in an inner city Birmingham practice where, he insists, his patients are largely unaware of his ‘other life’ as a professor of primary care health sciences.

Nevertheless, these two worlds inevitably collide, which is evident when Pulse gets him talking about NICE’s recent controversial decision to lower the primary cardiovascular prevention threshold from a 10-year risk of 20% to 10%.

With his GP hat on, he says he can understand the concerns – but he is still a staunch defender of the decision itself.

He argues that there is ‘the biggest evidence base available in medicine’ on statins and NICE is right to rule that it is cost-effective to offer more people the treatment, if they want it.

‘All NICE has done is say, “overall this is cost-effective” and in the end, I’ll discuss with the patient what to do – lifestyle changes where you can, such as stopping smoking, but also, potentially, offering a statin,’ says Professor Hobbs.

But he also recognises GPs’ complaints about the increased workload this will bring.

‘I think what’s more important at the moment is that GPs are feeling overwhelmed,’ he says. ‘And yes, if you get guidance that dramatically increases the proportion of people you might then offer treatment too and have to follow up then yes, you will think “enough is enough”.

‘There is an access issue in general practice and if [the] argument is that the wider cost implications of this have not been sufficiently thought through then that’s a perfectly appropriate argument, I agree with that.’

Professor Hobbs’ views in this area hold considerable weight - his research interests have largely focused on cardiovascular disease and stroke risk, as well as heart failure, on which he has published hundreds of papers, many in leading international journals such as the Lancet, the Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ and Stroke

He has also advised on numerous European and UK guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention and management, while his own groups’ work has informed major changes in practice through NICE guidelines, including recently the introduction of natriuretic peptide testing in diagnosis of heart failure, as well as the drive to improve use of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation.

But his influence is felt much more widely. In addition to heading up the Oxford research department, Professor Hobbs is also director of the National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, and has recently been re-appointed director of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Primary Care Research (SPCR).

The School, which includes eight university teams spearheaded by Professor Hobbs’ Oxford department, is about to start work on a new £30 million, five-year national programme of research and training in general practice.

Not surprisingly, Professor Hobbs is passionate about the role of GP academics. He stresses that the importance of having GPs actively involved in research is not only to pose the right research questions but to educate the next generation of doctors in the principles of general medicine.

He explains: ‘There are many skills that students recognise, as they get closer to becoming doctors, that are well represented in general practice – the idea of engagement with patients, attending to patient issues as well as our own in the consultation, how to diagnose when you have huge numbers of patients presenting with numerous problems - how, for example, you even begin to differentiate a serious headache from all the common headaches.

‘These are issues I think undergraduates recognise they need to develop tangible skills in – and GPs are often very good teachers in these more uncertain aspects of clinical practice.

‘But I also think the research questions we develop are very important, not just in the UK but internationally… We make contributions that help guide the way practitioners deliver medicine in the future.’

While cardiovascular medicine forms a key focus for the Oxford department, there are also groups carrying out leading research into obesity, smoking cessation, cancer and childhood infectious diseases, with plans to expand these areas as the department grows – three new professors and four associate professors of primary care have recently been appointed, and a further two ‘high profile’ senior-level recruits will join in 2015.

Professor Hobbs insists that Oxford University medical school punches above its weight when it comes to producing academics - and refutes the very public accusation made recently at the RCGP conference by NHS England chief executive Simon Stevens that Oxford and Cambridge Universities are not doing enough to encourage medical graduates into general practice.

On the contrary, he says, there is a limit to how far GP lecturers can influence trainee doctors’ long-term choice of career, which will inevitably be determined by wider issues around salaries and work-life balance.

He says: ‘Certainly what’s more important are the conditions once they get into their discipline. So, for example, if you have a pay differential between disciplines then that is very motivating for career choice - obviously.’

He adds: ‘A higher proportion of our graduates seek an academic career and that is important as well. I think Oxford would say we’re contributing to that national pool and although yes, it is incredibly important to get more GPs, it is also important to get better trained academics as well – we need to think about training in the totality. It is easy to take a pop, but there are other issues.’

Furthermore, he argues that making sure graduates are exposed to good experience of general practice through placements is critical.

‘We need to be more active in ensuring the clinical placements students are exposed to in primary care provide a positive experience, where they have a good learning environment.

‘That’s exactly how I ended up a GP – I thought I was going to be a cardiologist. I had very little primary care exposure, two weeks was all I had, it was a token add-on. One week was terrible, but one was fantastic and I suddenly realised you could practice medicine in the community, which I hadn’t realised you could do until then.

‘So to some extent my own career was based on, not a charismatic teacher, but the environment in this one - in retrospect rather an ordinary - practice, which I found quite motivating.’

His career has also seen him take on the role of co-director of the original independent panel that drew up the list of indicators to be included in the QOF when it was first introduced. Despite this, he is fairly pragmatic about the framework’s impact.

He says the scheme undoubtedly led to a rapid shift in practice, but agrees with the widely held view that some more recently developed indicators were unsuitable – and even questions whether it should be linked to pay.

‘I think having feedback of how well our clinical practice relates to indicators with evidence of benefiting patients, having that data is useful. If it is done automatically – as it is with QOF - I think that is desirable at practice level, but whether you link that to payment becomes a moot point.’

He argues that any such audits needs to be done according to a national standard as he warns that the current trend to develop local QOF arrangements could end up exacerbating geographical variations in the standards of care the NHS delivers.

‘One of the Achilles heels for us now is there is too much variation in performance,’ he adds. ‘There is obviously a danger, if you make everything local, it will be similar to what we see in local authorities, with the big variations in expenditure. I don’t think that would be good for health care, the one thing the NHS tries to avoid is the “postcode lottery” of care.

‘If postcodes become the basis for decisions about healthcare provision – if areas emphasis different work – I am not sure that will be taking us in the right direction.’


Age 61

Education Medical school training at University of Bristol 1972-1977, graduated as GP in 1981


1981-present: GP partner in Edgebaston, Birmingham

2011-present: Professor and Head, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford

2009-present: Director of the NIHR School for Primary Care Research 

2014-present: Director of the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (NIHR CLAHRC)

2007-present: President of the European Primary Care Cardiovascular Society (EPCCS).

2007-2013: Chair, Prevention and Care Board, British Heart Foundation

2005-2009: Co-director of the QOF Review Panel

1992-2011: Head of Primary Care Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham

Recent key publications



Rate this article  (2 average user rating)

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Readers' comments (9)

  • NO THANKS. I think i can do without the myalgia of statins. i dont care what your 'trials' say. if they cause me pain which mysteriously stops when i stop them then i will stop them. This is the reality which is ignored by so called trials.
    can we have access to all of the data we ask the drug companies - no you say. Why not? What are you hiding?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Myalgia is underrepresented in the trials as most had a pre-trial phase that probably excluded some "statin moaners"
    But most who complain of aches and pains are not getting them from statins
    In the HPS 30% complained of "abnormal " aches and pains .... In the placebo group!
    And in the statin group it was 30%
    The polypill trial doesn't have a wash out and aches and pains are10% higher in the treatment group but they are taking 3 BP Meds as well

    Against that we have the work of prof Wald and Law of the long term effects of statins that show the benefits increase after the first 2 years.

    10years on a statin will half your risk of heart attack or stroke.
    So far more effective than aspirin or BP Meds and a lot safer.

    Oh and they actually safe the NHS money..

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Perhaps he and Prof Field should do some research into patient satisfaction given their nhs choices reviews

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • He lives so far up his ivory tower that he and prof field forgot to look at their intelligent monitoring report that highlights their practices chd reporting. You couldn't make it up if you tried. Silly billies.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Given that you cannot get an appointment with a GP, everyone booking for appointments to get statins isn't going ot help.
    Surely teaching folk to live a a healthier lifestyle is more important, we cannot have a pill for every ailment and looking at Richard Hobbs paunch, he doesn't do that!

    Pills of ills is not the answer, educate the public and get this government to do something about the junk in our food!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Samuel Lewis

    why not just suck it and see ?

    (but if you read the Daily Mail don't bother - you probably believe anything according to preformed views without regard to evidence !)

    start at low -dose and get 75% of the benefit ( flattened dose-response curve)

    10mg a night is well-tolerated.
    if it upsets you STOP IT ( and cancel the prescription) !

    worried about GP workload ? just fire-and-forget-for-over-fifties.

    no tests are necessary - cholesterol levels are largely immaterial - benefits come in proportion to CVD risk ( ie: older men, then FH,hypertension, DM etc.. cholesterol level adds little to the sum)

    and Statin DOES reduce events by 30% !!

    so you will have less work and healthier patients bothering only the pharmacist !!

    'thankyou for not bothering the doctor"

    a no-brainer, ever since simvastatin went generic and cheap-as-chips ( 2008 ) -= and now atorva is at least as cost-effective

    what is it with doctors ?????????

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Average list size IS the problem with doctors.
    Every little straw increases consultation rates, which has doubled here in NI in 12 years - for the same or less money.
    Now, if pay was for work done ie/eg appointments, every little straw would have to be paid for in appointments.
    We GPs have to think of the future, this continuing and continuous increase in workload per patient year means that 4 hour consultation days become 10 hours and increases year on year, evident in both exodus and inability to attract new GPs.
    We GPs have to change, otherwise we will soon go the way of the carrier pigeon.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It would be helpful if declarations of interest could be made for an opinion piece like this. Unfortunately he does have quite a few ties to industry:

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sorry, wrong link above!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say