Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

NHS England set to pay GP practices to combine to cover 30-50k patients

GP practices in England will see initial funding to come together in super practices or federations with 30,000-50,000 patients, under plans announced today by NHS England.

By around 2019, NHS England expects '100%' of GP practices - including in rural areas - to have formed collaborative 'local care networks', covering these large cohorts of patients.

NHS England said this comes as early data showed these new care models, which includes multispecialty community providers (MCPs) and primary and acute care systems (PACS), were effective in reducing growth in emergency hospital admissions.

Its report Next Steps on the NHS Five Year Forward View said said this large model 'allows practices to share community nursing, mental health, and clinical pharmacy teams, expand diagnostic facilities, and pool responsibility for urgent care and extended access' and can work more closely with community pharmacists.

It added that this 'can be as relevant for practices in rural areas as in towns or cities' because 'the model does not require practice mergers or closures and does not necessarily depend on physical co-location of services'.

It listed 'various routes to achieving this' including 'federations, "super-surgeries", primary care homes, and [MCPs]', adding that: 'Nationally we will also use funding incentives - including for extra staff and premises investments - to support this process.'

The strategy is in line with health minister David Mowat's recent comment that GP federations or practices would reduce to 1,500 across England.

NHS England said this comes as 'both PACS and MCP vanguards have seen lower growth in emergency hospital admissions and emergency inpatient bed days than the rest of England'.

With the caveat not to 'over-interpret' currently available data 'given sample sizes and duration', it said that when comparing the two most recent 12-month periods for which data is available (until December 2016) the emergency admissions growth rates were 1.1% for PACS vanguards and 1.9% for MCP vanguards, compared to 'the non-vanguard rest of England' at 3.2%.

Speaking to Pulse, NHS England's primary care director Dr Arvind Madan said practices which were successful in achieving savings by reducing admissions could also expect to see this reinvested in their businesses (see box).

The Five Year Forward View update further said that aims to reduce hospital pressure will also form the basis of the QOF replacement that NHS England is discussing with the GPC.

It said NHS England will 'seek to develop and agree with relevant stakeholders a successor to QOF, which would allow the reinvestment of £700m a year into improved patient access, professionally-led quality improvement, greater population health management, and patients’ supported self-management, to reduce avoidable demand in secondary care'.

NHS England said its plan will also see all of the 44 sustainability and transformation plan (STP) areas eventually move to 'accountable care systems', which will be awarded for reducing admissions and boost population health.

But health think-tank the Nuffield Trust questioned whether the plans would be successful, especially in light of the news that GP workforce numbers are not improving.

Its chief executive Nigel Edwards said: 'Perhaps the biggest stumbling block facing these plans is the make-up of the NHS workforce.

'The plan rightly sets out an aim to do more outside hospital. Yet we have fewer district nurses than ever before, and although plans to increase GP numbers are very welcome, they come after a long history of underinvestment and missed recruitment targets. The latest figures show numbers fell by 400 last year.'

And BMA chair Dr Mark Porter said: 'This plan contains many good measures but does not address the fundamental funding pressures undermining the delivery of health and social care. The efficiency targets set in this plan are fanciful, given that most hospitals have been pushed into the red.

'The constant calls for more GPs to be available for longer is not matched by the reality on the ground – far from delivering 5,000 extra GPs promised by the government, figures from earlier this week show that the number of fulltime GPs is, in fact, falling.'

GP practices will benefit from reducing hospital pressures, says NHS England

Dr Madan said that GPs who were able to 'change clinical behaviour would see money 'invested back into their own infrastructure collectively'.

He said: 'Imagine a new world of networks for general practice. The new architecture for how we deliver across neighbourhoods, with some funding to get them going, and some ability to take a share of evidence based savings they make across prescribing, elective, and urgent care in their patch.’

He added that these 'local care networks of 30,000-50,00'0 would cover 50% of the country 'by the end of next year', and '100% by the year after'.

According to Dr Madan, these networks would be used as the 'vehicle' for making GP Forward View iniatives including collective training, employing multidisciplinary teams and delivering seven-day access.

Dr Madan stressed that this was not a return to fund holding as ‘this money will not land in GPs’ back pockets’ but would be reinvested into developing the network and staff teams.

‘This is architecture that everybody can get involved with’ he told Pulse ‘and it gives them some skin in the game in ways of changing clinical behaviours, in an evidence based way, that can be invested back into their own infrastructure collectively,' he said.

Related images

  • download


Readers' comments (37)

  • *

    You can add one less GP to your statistics

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been moderated.

  • These idiots massage the figures as they go along. There is a vast body of evidence to support the fact that smaller practices have fewer ED admssions and referrals. And higher patient satisfaction scores.

    The GPC should not be engaging with this QOF replacement scheme. It borders on immoral to be incentivised to keep patients out of hospital.

    The biggest crisis is being sidelined- the ageing population and the breakdown of social care causing bed blocking. But let's just beat GPs with a stick instead.

    Idiots.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • No No No,the resources are non existent in the community to keep people out of hospital.Anyway STPs are only a trojan horse for more funding cut and a further deterioration in the care provision provided to UK citizeens by the state.I am afraid when the populus wakes up to this it will be too late.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There would seem to be little place for GP partners in this new set-up.
    How will the financial risks - investment in premises etc - undertaken by current GP partners be managed?
    Or is widespread financial ruin for property owning or long term lease holders aceptable to TPTB?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Many of these 'vanguards' have received funding above that of those they are compared to and the A&E demand reduction needs to be adjusted for this variable before moving from association to causation.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Many of these 'vanguards' have received funding above that of those they are compared to and the A&E demand reduction needs to be adjusted for this variable before moving from association to causation.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What a load of BS!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Doctor McDoctor Face

    Welcome to the world of meetings and total chaos.Dr Madan will just walk away from this into obscurity when it falls flat on its face in two years time.
    Please please Labour get your act together to form an effective opposition to this dross.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Every other bit of the health service offers a core product, and if patients want to be seen faster or at a weekend, they pay. No GP would object if we were allowed to do the same.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Oh Dear! What a potentially disastrous policy.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page50 results per page

Have your say