This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

We must define GPs’ work in hours to sustain the profession

Defining GPs’ work in hours instead of sessions would help bring back more GPs into core general practice work and sustain the profession in the long term, Dr Pam Martin argues

Dr Pam Martin

Time is a precious resource, but at the moment GPs are not being paid for their time. They are being paid notionally for the work of caring for a list of patients. When I was in my mid-fifties, getting tired after years of 12-hour days as a partner, I reduced my commitment. Friends and neighbours were astonished that the residual 36 hours of work were considered ‘part-time’.

The BMA salaried GP contract defines a session as four hours and 10 minutes, with the expectation that within this, the ratio of clinical to admin work is in the region of three to one, excluding meetings.

This is not the reality for most partners, or indeed many salaried GPs. A session may be working as duty doctor, starting at 8am, dealing with an uncapped list of self-defined urgent problems, and going on to do visits, and coming back to do routine prescribing and correspondence and other admin. Or a session could be a pre-booked list of 15 people, all with complex issues including mental illness, that would require five hours – 20 minutes each – to be dealt with properly including admin. Or it could be a telephone triage session. Or a session just for visits. In other words, the work in a session is not defined.

Of course the work of a consultation is not defined either. Most GPs will recognise some tensions in teams between doctors with different consultation styles. A good team, however, will combine the strengths of all its practitioners, and we do now have consensus that GPs are being asked to squeeze too much work into not enough time.

If consultants in hospitals can have their workplan defined in terms of hours, why can’t GPs?

UK GPs consistently see more patients in a day, and for shorter times, than their counterparts in any European country. Our paymasters may see this as good, but high consultation rates for a GP are not necessarily linked to efficiency and good outcomes. The challenges now often relate to diagnostic uncertainty, engaging the unengaged and discovering barriers to care so that the influence of the inverse care law can be diminished and earlier diagnoses delivered, including for cancer. This inevitably takes clinicians’ time.

Many doctors are finding that the only way they can exert control over their working time is to accept roles with clearly defined hours, such as working as locums, or in out-of-hours, urgent care or telemedicine shifts. Creating practice-based GP work that is compatible with the hours most GPs can work sustainably would open the doors again to those doctors who want the delights of long-term care delivery.

The recent GMC Annual State of Medical Education and Practice Report found that roughly one in three GPs said insufficient time with a patient affected accuracy of a diagnosis at least weekly. We cannot do more in an hour than we can do in an hour.

Let’s be straightforward and measure our work in hours. If consultants in hospitals can have their workplan defined in terms of hours, why can’t GPs?

I am told that thinking of GP work in terms of hours not sessions would inevitably lead to a slide away from self-employment. But surely if we don’t have a feeling for the time taken to do a job we can’t price our labour? Self-employed lawyers aren’t hesitant to bill by the hour.

One line of thinking recently debated at the LMC England conference was to cap list sizes at 1,500 without a reduction in resources. The proposal was defeated by doctors afraid that they would lose the potential to earn more by doing more work, or by working with less expensive staff. Some also thought it was ‘pie in the sky’.

However, if the NHS 10-year plan funds general practice realistically this would include provision for a skill mix to enable GPs to see the complex people that they are trained to manage. This could allow the provision of the precious commodity of time so most GPs could settle for a workload giving job satisfaction and good pay, but seeing fewer patients for longer.

In an independent contractor system, those few doctors who choose to work differently and see more patients or have longer clinics could still do so if they wish, but we need enough capitation funding so that a GP could have a satisfactory income for a 40-hour week. A 40-hour week is surely a reasonable aspiration for a doctor who wishes to earn a competitive professional income after undertaking speciality training in general practice.

Our negotiators should be giving this clear message, and GPs need to be prepared to take action to save UK NHS general practice if our needs are not met.

Dr Pam Martin is a GP in south-east London

Rate this article  (4.58 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 (4)

  • National Hopeless Service

    The NHS is the biggest employer in the UK and 5th biggest in the world. The vast majority of staff are demoralised and disinterested in their jobs and outcomes to a level that I don't think can ever be recovered now even if billions were to be invested next week. I think we have to face the reality that absolutely nothing will change in the NHS. Either put up with it or start to move into the private sector even if that is as locums to the NHS.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This point based on hours/ consultations etc has been debated in LMCs many times and the vote always goes against it. I have spoked for this motion a few times, even proposed it several years ago, but it never made the debate.
    We are authors of our own misfortune of undefined workloads.
    But surely, it does not matter because GP numbers are increasing.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Agree with everything in this article except the hope that the NHS 10 year plan will offer sufficient funding to meet the realistic redefinition of GPs' work to a 40 hour week and maintain or increase current earnings (and I recognise that this hope hinges on multidisciplinary working, not just GPs seeing patients). Funding needs to be rocket-fueled in the manner of 2004 or better. Otherwise, hear hear. The all-you-can-eat buffet needs to be shut down.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Slavery was not abolished overnight so why should we expect GP workload to improve any time soon? Add to that a massive dose of Stockholm syndrome plus a bit of heavy duty brainwashing by the establishment and you’ve got a winner!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say