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

GP at Hand improves health access for migrants and homeless, finds review

Babylon’s GP at Hand smartphone app ‘advances equality of access to GP services’, an assessment of its impact on patients has found.

The equality impact assessment, carried out on behalf of NHS Hammersmith and Fulham CCG, found that the NHS app was ‘more likely to address most barriers than traditional GP services’ in 10 out of 11 protected groups.

It especially found the app made it easier for ‘vulnerable migrants and homeless people’ to register for NHS general practice.

Since November last year, GP at Hand has used the GP out-of-area registration scheme to sign up over 30,000 patients from across London and beyond to a GP practice in Fulham in south west London. It promises a same-day online consultation or a next-day face-to-face assessment if required.

The report, carried out by by Verve Communications and published in CCG board papers, said that 'the GP at Hand service advances equality of access to GP services for some groups, especially in the areas of obtaining an appointment and getting to appointment'.

It added: ‘Confusion about entitlements and the need for ID are an ongoing issue in UK primary care. Although an NHS guideline states that the lack of ID should not be a barrier to registering, vulnerable migrants and homeless people are still being refused registration in primary care. 

‘GP at Hand registration allows this cohort to register online.’

The report also suggested ‘carers may benefit from [the] use of GP at Hand as this will allow them to consult a primary care practitioner whilst continuing with their care responsibilities’.

The results of the assessment comes as accusations of 'cherry picking' patients has riddled GP at Hand since the London launch, including from the BMALondonwide LMCs and the RCGP - an accusation which GP at Hand has repeatedly denied.

GP at Hand does not block anybody from using the service, but says people who are frail or elderly, pregnant or have severe mental health issues may be advised they are better serviced by a local practice. Despite this, GP at Hand has registered patients with these conditions, including 86 patients with serious mental illness.

The equality assessment found that patients with mental health conditions that mean that leaving their home is a challenge are benefitted by GP at Hand as it 'offers a route to GP care without the need for a person to travel for an initial conversation'. 

The review did not look at the impact on pregnant patients as NHS England currently deem out-of-area GP Choice registrations to be inappropriate for those who are pregnant or seeking to become pregnant.

Dr Robert Morley, BMA GP Committee contracts and regulation policy lead, told Pulse: 'It’s certainly laudable if the vulnerable are better able to access GP services, but questions remain as to whether the GP at Hand model is the most appropriate one for many of these patients.

'There is no doubt that the model is certainly not the best one for providing the holistic, non-fragmented care that is in all patients’ best interests, depending as it does on cherry picking the young and healthy through exploitation of the out-of-area registration regulation.'

A GP at Hand spokesperson said the report ‘shows that we go further than traditional general practice in addressing barriers to access for people with protected characteristics’.

They added: ‘GP at Hand and Babylon are making high accessible, high quality NHS primary care a reality for everyone, and we are very grateful to NHS Hammersmith and Fulham CCG and NHS England for their support as we conducted a full and through Equality Impact Assessment.’

The news comes as LMC leaders recently advised their practices not to register homeless patients using their surgery’s address, contrary to NHS England advice.

It also comes as NHS England is consulting GPs on changes to the GP contract which would boost the expansion of 'online first' providers of GP services.

A wider review of GP at Hand’s ‘outcomes and impacts’, which is being led by Ipsos Mori under a £250,000 contract, is still ongoing.

Babylon is currently trying to expand its GP at Hand offering to Birmingham, however it is being blocked by commissioners which have concerns about patient access to screening services.

Which are the 'protected' patient groups?

The report said GP at Hand is 'more likely to address most barriers [to access] than traditional GP services' in every category out of 11 protected patent groups except pregnant patients. These groups are protected based on:

  • Age
  • Religion or belief
  • Disability
  • Sex
  • Sexual orientation
  • Gender reassignment
  • Pregnancy and maternity
  • Marriage and civil partnership
  • Race
  • Carers
  • Socio-economic disadvantage

Source: NHS Hammersmith and Fulham CCG

Readers' comments (15)

  • Justifying the unjustifiable!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Babylon are getting better and better at the Political chess game.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Not sure my homeless patient in Newcastle will find it that easy to access a face to face appointment, in Fulham, when it is ultimately needed.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It’s called the reality gap.
    The distance between what is claimed and what is real

    If hmg and the U.K. public want to destroy their healthcare I can’t stop them.
    My view has changed. There’s money to be made in this insanity situation. But I’m off ...
    This wasn’t wot I trained for. Hope my colleagues charge a fortune

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Bornjovial

    As long as they have a the latest iPhone/android phone with unlimited data package, speak fluent English and have private Insurance.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Fair’s fair, equally piss poor is ‘equality’

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I'm still not clear if they offer any sort of visiting service... Its great that people who cant leave the house can have a consultation via app but what if this group need to be seen face to face?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Bob Hodges

    The Emperor's New Clothes look the same to 10 out of 11 people.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • AlanAlmond

    Another day another promotional piece on GP at hand. Are they sponsoring PULSE or something? Enough already about this lame bunch of wanna be ‘disruptors’. They must be jumping up and down wetting themselves in excitement every time you write an article. They’re a bunch of zeros and I’m a little fed up with the constraint drip feed about their second rate medical internet start up venture. Im currently working through an internet/app focused locum agency called Lantum. They’re like Uber but for Drs. Why don’t you write about them? Way more Dr focused than the patient centred consumerist agenda of Push Dr, the constant talk of which just feeds our growing passivity and negativity. Open your minds PULSE , there’s more going on in medical tech than these guys, some of it (like lantum) puts the control firmly back in the hands of the service provider..aka your useful but difficult to find well trained excellent but lately down trodden GP. We’re actually a vital and central resource - the tech rollercoaster ain’t always about making life easy for the consumer, it can be about making life easier for us too.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is utter nonesense. I agree with bonjovial above. Who are the clowns who did the ‘equality assessment’? How much were they paid?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • @Neil MJ

    As part of all of our contracts - if you choose to register out of area patients, which we all can, then the CCG has a duty to make sure there is a home visit service available for them. I think they signed up a few surgeries (I think we might be one of them) to visit patients who fall in to that category for a fee.

    The thing is I don't think the process has ever actually been tested. It is also ridiculous that they get paid the same GMS fee for looking after patients.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • "Equality assessment". Let us all wear the same cap and same coloured clothes and eat in communal kitchens. Drive the same car--err no the economy will be so poor we have to cycle. Communism is fairness?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I'm sure that the headline is not justified by the content of the connected paper. The paper takes eds2 criteria and then does a literature review of all the difficulties people with these characteristics have in accessing 'standard' GP practices.

    These are balanced with the author's opinion that the app 'does'nt have this problem'. The only actual evidence is that there are 23 LD patients registered out of ?several thousand! and several 5 star reviews on facebook!

    Maybe there is another paper, but the one linked above is a paid for opinion piece in the style 'I like monster munch because they are cheesy and smiley and taste great'.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Last time I checked, homeless people on the streets weren’t busy using iPads to access medical care.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • the report says that they could use the service, in the opinion of the writer, who was paid by GP at hand to say that the homeless could use the service. So that is alright then.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say