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

GP leaders to consider encouraging non-clinical GP partners to save partnerships

GP leaders will be voting on whether non-GPs should be actively encouraged to become partners in an effort to sustain the partnership model, at the UK-wide LMCs Conference next month. 

The agenda also contains a motion urging the BMA’s GP Committee ‘to petition the Government for less adversarial approach to adverse events’, in light of the Dr Bawa-Garba case, which saw a junior doctor struck off after being charged with gross negligence manslaughter.

Representatives from LMCs across the UK will gather in Liverpool on 9 March to vote on what will become GPC UK policy.

GPs in Hampshire and Isle of Wight have proposed the motion to ‘encourage non-GP staff to become partners to further increase the sustainability of the partnership model’, adding that the model is ‘the most efficient and cost-effective way of delivering general practice’.

This comes after the health secretary announced a review into partnership model, alongside the BMA and the RCGP

However, practice managers have long been able to take on the role of partner, with a Pulse survey finding that 4% of practice managers had reached partner status in 2013.

Meanwhile, GPs in Avon have issued a motion concerning ‘the number of gross negligence manslaughter trials which involve members of the medical profession’ and called on the GPC to discuss a ‘less adversarial approach’ to patient deaths that ‘recognises the importance of system failures’.

Earlier this month, the health secretary ordered a ‘rapid review’ into the use of manslaughter charges against doctors to create ‘clarity about where the line is drawn between gross negligence manslaughter and ordinary human error’. 

The agenda also includes several motions on workload as part of a ‘themed debate’ calling on the GPC to ‘invest time in defining "safe working levels" for GPs’, with GPs in Sandwell calling for ‘13 consultations per session in 2018, falling to 9 consultations, each of 15 minutes duration by 2020’. 

This comes as Pulse revealed that the BMA is working to draw up guidance to help GP practices manage their workload to safe limits, enabling GPs to set a capacity limit on the number of patients seen in a day. 

Local GP leaders will also raise concerns about high levels of practice closures, and new online GP services that 'cherry pick the patients to whom they offer services'.

Other motions to be debated include urging the GPC to examine the new Scottish contract, looking at how elements of it could be incorporated into the English contract negotiations.

The new Scottish contract, which was green-lit by GP leaders in January, will see GPs directly reimbursed for practice and staff expenses, a move away from GPs owning premises and a focus on the GP as an expert medical generalist at the head of a multidisciplinary team. 

Contract negotiations in England are still ongoing, with Pulse reporting last week that the GPC had told GPs at their ‘roadshow’ events that they can expect ‘minimal changes’ to their contract from April.

Click here to read the motions in full

Readers' comments (18)

  • The thing about business is if a partner moves the surgery on to batter processes and profits, they are valued. Any partner not contributing is acting like an employee
    The issue is 3 out of 10 do most of the work of partner. Facts.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • AlanAlmond

    How is this in the interests anyone but a penny pinching government with little interest in anything but control? It sounds like throwing in the towel and giving up. It’s the solution of a profession that doesn’t have any fight left and doesn’t have any ideas. What is the point of a medical partnership made up of partners who aren’t Drs?. Would anyone suggest a law firm with a partnership of folk who aren’t lawyers, or an accountancy firm with a partnership of people who aren’t accountants. It’s sad. It’s exactly what the government wants, to push Drs out of primary care so they can run a crap, cheap service with politically appointed robots at the helm. Please why are we being so utterly defeatist? This is such a bad idea on so many levels but mostly on a fundamental philosophical one - a partnership of Drs...without Drs. I’m at a loss.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I believe solicitors can now have partnerships of non=lawyers.

    But I agree. It would be good have partners from other medical specialities (who wouldn't want an in-house psychiatrist) or a two session cardiologist as a partner

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Need to have GMS as LLP. That would save it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The reason partnerships worked well until a few years ago is simple; GPs worked till they dropped for relatively little money ( the government had a very good deal indeed). Times have changed and GPs now know their value and the importance of having a life. The partnership model is dead, the NHS is dead. God save us all.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • CENSORSHIP?

    One of the reasons given for not filling partnership posts is that candidates are not appropriately qualified ... This now takes the piss if none gp's are considered in preference..
    Keep it in the family ???

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • CENSORSHIP?

    Some older qualified gp's may not have official MRCGP.... Yet are extremely experienced

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Funny that.

    I thought the problem was not enough clinicians and too many managers.

    A scheme to make more managers will save general practice? They must be genius......

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say