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

Decommission GPs who do not plan care for long term conditions, says think-tank

The NHS should incentivise practices who provide personalised care planning for patients with long-term conditions, and decommission services who don’t, a think tank has argued.

The King’s Fund report, Delivering better services for people with long-term conditions, argues that GPs should adopt the ‘house of care’ model which involves clinicians and patients working collaboratively to create care personalised care plans with patients which identify their goals and what support they need.

This would spark a move towards a system where the care of patients with long term conditions is more anticipated and planned, and with patients more informed, engaged and capable of self-management, the report said.

NHS England should support this move by ensuring that ‘its incentives reflect the importance of care planning’ and the GP contract is ‘aligned to support this approach’. It should also be ready to ‘decommission poor-quality primary care services’, it said.

This means GPs must abandon traditional ways of thinking where they see themselves as the primary decision-makers and shift to a partnership model involving collaborative decision making, the report said.

It added: ‘Implementing the model requires health care professionals to abandon traditional ways of thinking and behaving, where they see themselves as the primary decision-makers, and instead shifting to a partnership model in which patients play an active part in determining their own care and support needs.’

Readers' comments (14)

  • Vinci Ho

    Editor , clerical error, I think
    It is ....King's Fund report , NOT King's Fun report.
    Though it is always 'fun' reading what they said
    Ha Ha Ha😄😄😝😜😘😁☺️😚

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Indeed it is - correction made

  • Once we have the resources to see and treat people who are ill or believe themselves to be ill, then perhaps we can consider the luxury of sitting with our chronically ill patients and discussing their future goals and reflecting together in our 'house of care' over a collaborative cup of tea etc etc yadda yadda yadda.
    Reality check please Kings Fund.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It's interesting to note in certain areas where there are Long term condition LES's there are payments to try and create incentives for this. But as usual this is often funded by huge cuts elsewhere or a complete lack of funds in buildings or training.

    I see that so many organizations including government and think tanks live with the black box mentality. Suggest solution and expect a magical body to complete them all without funding to thinking it through. Considering GP's have been planning for so many years I would suggest a grass root structure or solution with GP's and community nurses suggesting the structure and funding requirements for this.

    The king's fund suggestion will just turn into a geriatric ward MDT meeting with its multidisciplinary focus with lots of talk and box ticking and usually very little achievement

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "Decommission"- The usual revealing language of confrontation and aggression. Each time this happens another little bit of GP dies and brings forward the retirement plans of the only people who could actually make this work

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The first wasteful thing to be decommissioned should be The King's Fund.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 'This means GPs must abandon traditional ways of thinking where they see themselves as the primary decision-makers and shift to a partnership model involving collaborative decision making, the report said.'

    Hilarious - the default position of almost every other provider is 'ask your GP'. No-one else is prepared to shoulder our burden. Multidisciplinary meetings will never meet all the needs of acute medical problems.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is exactly what I arranged with my third patient this morning, as we chatted over a pot of tea and some rather nice home baked scones she had brought with her.
    Fortunately she was my last patient before I tootled off to visit a couple of old dears to chat about their plans to go off on a world cruise and spend the winter in their villa in Spain - jolly good for your dicky chest, I said.
    I didn't need to get myself lunch as I had been well looked after during the couple of hours I had just spent on the two visits so I nipped off for a quick nine holes.
    I am typing this as I put my feet up before evening surgery although I believe I have had a couple of cancellations so will not be as rushed off my feet as this morning. .

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been moderated

  • Just finishing my day's work in surgery, I think I'll do a spot of care planning now.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 'This means GPs must abandon traditional ways of thinking where they see themselves as the primary decision-makers and shift to a partnership model involving collaborative decision making, the report said.'


    Why do doctor-centric GPs have a such problem with this? Is it more important to 'prove that you are right' than work in the best interests of the patient (which means involving them in decision-making)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Hello anon 9:46

    Was mission' you!

    Meuuhwaa, meuuuhwa

    Trolls of the world ignite. .

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say