This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Little evidence to support move to large-scale general practice, say researchers

There is little evidence to suggest that larger GP practices boost clinical outcomes or save money, researchers have warned.

Their paper, published in the journal Health Policy, found that trade-offs and unintended consequences meant that expected benefits from scaling up GP practices were hard to see on the ground.

The findings come as the NHS long-term plan has outlined plans to mandate GPs to work in primary care networks of 30-50,000 patients.

Researchers urged policymakers to move with caution before upscaling GP practice list sizes.

The academics at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Nuffield Trust and the University of Birmingham found that:

  • Economies of scale from larger organisations may not outweigh diseconomies of scale that may emerge due to new more complex governance and management processes;
  • Little evidence exists to suggest that integrated care initiatives have reduced the use of services or generated cost savings;
  • Improved clinical outcomes and cost savings do not automatically result from ‘scaling-up’.

If large-scale models were to succeed, ensuring GPs felt in control of the process was key, the report stated.

‘National and international experience underlines that the engagement of GPs is essential to increase the likelihood of collaborations succeeding. For this, GPs must feel they have sufficient autonomy and influence over any new groupings,’ it said.

The report noted that over the past decade, ‘new forms of "large-scale" GP-led provider collaborations’ have grown across England. By 2017, four-fifths of respondents to a survey of GPs and GP practice managers were working in some form of inter-practice collaboration.

However until now there has been ‘limited good quality research’ on the impact of upscaling general practice, the researchers said.

After reviewing the existing evidence in detail the researchers have concluded that the expected benefits, such as economies of scale, have not materialised.

The paper said: ‘While positive impact seems plausible, evidence suggests that it is not a given that clinical outcomes or patient experience will improve, nor that cost savings will be achieved as a result of increasing organisational size.

'Since the impact and potential unintended consequences are not yet clear, it would be advisable for policymakers to move with caution, and be informed by ongoing evaluation.’

GP contract negotiations are ongoing but it is expected that GP practices in England will be mandated to join networks of 30,000-50,000 patients in return for a major funding boost.

NHS England said the decision to roll out the model across England came in response to the success of the vanguard trials of multispeciality community providers (MCPs) and primary and acute care systems (PACS).

In 2017, NHS England said that initial data showed that these collaborative care networks were effective in cutting emergency admissions. 

Dr Peter Swinyard, chairman of the Family Doctor Association, said that while no practice today ‘can remain an island’ there were problems with making practices ever larger.

He said: ‘It’s very difficult to provide good continuity of care in large organisations. And it’s interesting that [the report] says that cost savings don’t automatically result from scaling up.’ 

Stephanie Kumpunen, fellow in health policy at the Nuffield Trust and the report's co-author, said that while the study had not focosed on primary care networks specifically, evidence was still lacking that the long-term plan approach would be successful.

She said: 'There’s mixed evidence. I’m definitely cautious. There isn’t enough evidence in the UK to say these will definitely work as the Government envisages.'

However she added: 'But I wouldn’t say it can’t happen. There’s a lot to build on.'

Readers' comments (20)

  • Predictable!
    Announce policy in an evidence free vacuum and hope for the best!
    Politicians
    I'll just add Christopher Ho's comment as he must be busy now-
    More evidence to take health out of the public sector

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Some are in serious trouble with poor governance and lack of engagement. It seems that even in big combines the original practices still attempt to maintain their separateness. This is without all the problems of lack of continuity and poor working experience. NHS England is aware but chooses to ignore this growing scandal as this bandaid policy is too big to fail and too big to reverse.

    A curse on all those who recommend it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • When have politicians ever allowed research to get in the way of political dogma?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Spot on DermotRyan

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • business has found that the franchisee model works best and general practice is an example of this. Over the last 60 years medium sized practices have been the most stable and successful. what idiot is going to throw this out...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is not new evidence. It has been collated to demonstrate that the 'big is best' policy is not self evident and may be wrong.

    It is in everyone's interest to look carefully at the report to learn how the dys-economies of scale work. Especially those who are already trying to cope with spiralling costs in big practices and practice groups.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
    We should consider that this is an ‘insult’ to our intelligence.
    The model we have been running on (GMS GP partnership)is clearly the most cost-effective , at least historically , with preservation of continuity of care .
    But in face of austerity, it would appear to be ‘easier’ for politicians to control and cut cost of there were only 20 humongous GP practices in the whole country .
    Today , they are talking about a size of 30,000 to 50,000. What will it be tomorrow? 100,000 to 500,000 , easily !
    Please , give us a break, we all know where politicians want to end up.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I was single handed till I semiretired. I knew every one by name and their health problems. You will never get this is large organisation. Patient hate to tell same story to different doctors each time they visit.
    I have no doubt the decision is financial but that too they will not achieve.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I suppose one thing that might help is with a large organisation like this you could pass on more management stuff to managers, and you could even form your own small "union" amongst the large group of salaried GP's there willing to strike or work to rule at a moments notice, forcing decent conditions. And I must admit that that being the best outcome for this possible scenario makes me depressed beyond belief....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Does political management of the NHS often seek evidence for its reforms?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say