This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

pulse june2020 80x101px
Read the latest issue online

GPs go forth

DH 'told workforce review to ignore GP numbers'

Exclusive A major review of the primary care workforce was asked not to make any recommendations on GP numbers, as the Government has claimed it was not needed.

The chair of the review has told Pulse he was told not to focus on GP staffing levels following discussions between the Department of Health and Health Education England, who commissioned the report.

This was despite the health secretary at the RCGP conference in October last year promising the review would be an ‘independent study’ on what GPs were required ‘area by area’.

The DH told Pulse that staffing data were published last month on the NHS England website - although Pulse has reported there there are concerns around the accuracy of these data, and the GPC has called for them to be withdrawn.

Mr Hunt made a pre-election commitment that a Conservative government would create an additional 5,000 new GPs – a commitment he has since rolled back on, saying it is now only the ‘maximum’ that will be recruited.

The Primary Care Workforce Commission report, released last week, made a ‘note’ of this committment, but made no concrete recommendations on the GP workforce.

Instead, it largely focussed on recommending other non-GP roles - such as physician associates or pharmacists - who could ease the pressure on GP workloads.

In an exclusive interview with Pulse, the chair of the commission, Professor Martin Roland, professor of health sciences at the University of Cambridge, told Pulse that the number of GPs was ‘never in our terms of reference’.

He said: ‘There was a lot of discussion about whether at ought to be, or not, and a decision was made – not by me, between Health Education England and DH - that that was not going to be part of our terms of reference.’

He added that simply recruiting 5,000 more GPs was not enough, and that they should be targeted at underdoctored areas and given more than financial incentives to stay.

He said: ‘That means providing doctors with a feeling that they will get good working lives, that they won’t be isolated, that they’ll be supported and there will be good ongoing education and opportunities.’

When questioned by Pulse, Health Education England said the review had deliberately not been tasked with looking at GP numbers.

A spokesperson said: ‘It is important to look first at the new models of care that will deliver services that patients will want and need in the future before we look at specific numbers of any part of the workforce.’

A Department of Health spokesperson said: ‘As part of the secretary of state’s speech on general practice, clinical staffing data was published on the NHS England website last month detailing for the first time the number of GPs per area. Further work will follow.’

Dr Richard Vautrey, deputy chair of the GPC, told Pulse: ‘The promise made by Jeremy Hunt wasn’t followed through in practice. The data he wanted hasn’t really existed since the days of the Medical Practice Committee that was disbanded years ago.’

Readers' comments (36)

  • without knowing the numbers of practicing Gps on workforce,depleted by NHS Efficiency and stubborn;with GPs enforced to reduce appointment times to ten minutes,and demanding 7 day opening all this looks like a pipe dream.
    NHs has been actively depleting workforce numbers by irrationally referring,for mistakes of services the GP and doctors, to the obliging GMC MPTS thereby ensuring their resignations

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Ivan - please stop your politics

    Please explain how you can have a review of general practice without considering the number of general practitioners..?
    How can you have a review of any workforce without considering the very members of that workforce that do the job and are ultimately held responsible?

    Life is getting tougher for us all - those of you, like Ivan, who have been lucky enough to be at the right place in the right time and make the right investments and have stakes in various private firms, or come from more privileged backrounds are lucky - should stay quiet if you cant do anything for the grassroot GP

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Ivan,

    You are correct about probable future consideration for increasing GP numbers.

    However,

    General practice alive and well?? You've obviously being practicing in a different planet from rest of us moaners.

    Also how did Mr Hunt managed to come up with "5000 GPs" if he has not already done future scoping? Are you trying to tell us Secretary of the state simply plucked the number out of thin air without an analysis to back up his claim for need?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Ivan I've been trading your comments over a number of years now, your position is a simple political one and always the same - ' I support the governments plans'

    Salaried GPs - 'yes please!', 7 day working - 'bring it on! doing it already!'....the latest government sponsored - 'smashing!', anything and everything happening is a great idea and certainly for the best.

    Do you have anything to contribute other than..'I think the government are right (on what ever issue is currently being discussed) ?'

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • ''General Practice is alive and well''
    Ivan, your comments are quite enlightening and it is great that while we all are sailing in troubled waters, at least you are positive and think that BMA and RCGP do represent GPs and that there is a 'vision' we are heading towards. Unfortunately, majority of us don't but then opinions differ depending on what sort of resources you have access to or are sitting on.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • And on Friday Maureen Baker sends out a letter to RCGP members "Buildibg a work force for our future.".

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Ivan is having an hallucination rather than a vision . Dr Pangloss or what?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • i think in desperate times, GP's should cluster around viable areas, there are still very good practices with good earnings dotted all around ( Usually in the SE of England though) where I think they can build a sustainable future.

    Some areas have to become bare zones before people wake up and realise what they have lost

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • these sound like third world politicians.desperation?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Took Early Retirement

    I cannot understand why Ivan is so optimistic, though I like his thoughtful posts. It is good to have a variety of opinions here.
    I have to say I much prefer retirement to being a GP. This am I was chainsawing down a tree for my wife's cousin; so much more fun than doing a surgery of c 18-20 punters, 10 phone calls and then 3 visits, followed by almost the same in the evening.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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

Have your say