This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

pul jul aug2020 cover 80x101px
Read the latest issue online

Independents' Day

‘It’s not sufficient to have 5,000 doctors’

Professor Martin Roland, who has just completed a major review of the GP workforce, tells Pulse that the Government’s target of 5,000 new GPs by 2020 is ‘far from certain’

When announcing the independent workforce review, Jeremy Hunt said: ‘We tasked HEE to do an independent study on what exactly do we need, area by area. We need to know exactly where we are underdoctored and by how much.’

Why isn’t this in the report?

That’s very simple - if you look in the terms of reference of the commission, that was never in our Terms of Reference. 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.

We would look at new models of care and somebody else would look at numbers.

It’s not sufficient to have 5,000 doctors in the areas already over doctored. There do need to be initiatives to attract doctors to come and work in some of the parts of the country that are less attractive at the moment. We know from evidence, from this and other countries, that financial incentives are part of that – you’ll be aware that the Government recently announced financial incentives for doctors to move to under doctored areas. But non-financial incentives are also really important.

So 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.

How do you provide guarantee they won’t be working in isolation?

We haven’t got any specific examples on things like working in isolation, I know from the literature there are examples from abroad. Other countries have a much bigger problem than we have, you know Australia and Canada getting people to move to remote or unpopular areas, but I think there are plenty of things that Health Education England particularly could think about in supporting doctors – especially in their early years as a GP.

The other thing on numbers, and some people have said to us ‘why are you suggesting more pharmacists, and the possibility of physician associates? Why not just more GPs?’

Our answer is two fold: firstly some of these roles have things to offer – particularly pharmacists for example – are doing things that would complement work that is done by GPs.

But the reality is, even if the Government was successful in recruiting 5,000 GPs by 2020 – which is far from certain – that’s not going to meet all of the workforce requirements of the future. Saying ‘oh well GPs could just do it all’ is not the right way to be thinking.

We visited a practice in Yorkshire which is employing two physician assistants. They’ve done that very simply because they’re unable to find replacements for GP partners who had left. And that arrangement was working very well.

There clearly is a tension between access and continuity, and we think the Government has, over many years, put too much priority on opening hours and too little on people being able to see a doctor of their choice. Which is in danger of becoming a considerable problem.

It’s not just a danger for patients, because patients like to see their own doctor, but it’s increasingly a problem for doctors because as our population gets older and we have more and more multi-morbid patients, then the problems of dealing with someone you don’t know in a ten-minute consultation becomes increasingly difficult for doctors – and potentially a patient safety issue.

So we think that needs to become a much greater priority.

Is the continuity issue completely down to raw numbers of GPs to take workload?

The RCGP has published a reference on this.

There are some quite straightforward things that the college recommends that can make continuity easier for patients  and also for doctors. It is a common complaint from patients that they can’t get to see their doctor, or they see someone different every time.

I’ve been in surgeries frequently where patients said they couldn’t get an appointment with the GP they’ve seen before. It’s almost as though patients don’t realise now that continuity of care is an important issue for us.

The Government has pushed initiatives to bring about seven-day working to improve health care outcomes . Can you improve health outcomes with seven-day working if continuity of care suffers?

I think as opening hours get extended more and more, it becomes more difficult to provide continuity of care. So our view is the Government needs to put more focus, relatively speaking, on continuity of care and somewhat less focus on access.

Clearly there is a push, including from patients, for GPs to be seen at more extended hours. But we need to distinguish between people who don’t particularly mind who they see and are happy to see a doctor from another practice if they’re a group of practices or a federation providing care in that way. And there are those people to whom it really does matter that they’re seeing a doctor that they know.

We can see benefits in future to primary care organisations holding the contracts for providing out of hours care, rather than it being hold by somebody separate. I think that will make it easier to provide for these very real tensions between continuity and access.

So what do we need 5,000 or 8,000 new GPs?

We quite deliberately didn’t express a view on that because we don’t think we’ve got a reliable figure to give. The 5,000 is a commitment and we just noted that the college has said 8,500.

It’s something that needs to be under constant review - if the NHS is able to provide more of these roles, physician associates etc, to what extent will they be able to successfully fill in the gaps where we can’t get GPs.

This might be something that needs to be taken much more locally, rather than saying 8,000 and they all go to the wrong place.

Rate this article  (3.6 average user rating)

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Readers' comments (9)

  • Surely the professor should be invited to write what he truly believes is needed, rather then the reports set up by HEE/DoH.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • First we need more trainers or it all comes to nought

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Is this just yet another report that Hunt and Co' will ignore.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Harry Longman

    Trying to write an independent report which is politically funded and controlled, and which inevitably impinges upon promises made by politicians. Nice.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "We would look at new models of care and somebody else would look at numbers" - so I guess that Professor Roland would consider these two enquiries to be complementary and need to be taken together to give a full picture? I suppose therefore that Professor Roland has assured himself that this other arm of enquiry is taking place? Perhaps he could let us know when it will report please?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • We will end up with a load of foreign doctors that struggle to speak English at a level we understand, or whose skills are not up to a standard we expect.

    Doctors take years to train yet Hunt thinks he can produce doctors over night.
    Educate the public, make all new mothers do a basic first aid course.
    Close A&E to all but ambulance cases.
    Provide drop in centre for minor ailments.
    Fine DNA's and ban them from pre booking for one year.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • We have the power to embarrass Hunt and tip the balance. Think GPs think.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This does not address the problems in GP recruitment and what patients want.(but they do not matter to the DOH)
    WE need more GPs but not in 5 years but now or there will be a haemorrhage from the older folk and no one to replace them. They happen to also be the most experienced and will be sadly missed.
    the election in 4 years may be the crowning factor. Fancy going in with a failing NHS. !
    Shorten the training and add a supervised introduction to practice. Safe Effective and problem solving, especially if its including a financial incentive for new GPs!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Come on Prof. .... You never have all the evidence you want, but you've read the worlks of Barbara Starfield, you've worked as a GP, you've considered long and deep...
    & Sod the DoH political machinations... No ifs, no buts, no caveats
    How many Extra GPs do you think we should have in the UK??

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say