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

GPC 'to agree to named clinician role in return for reduction in QOF targets' as contract deal nears

Exclusive The GPC and NHS England are moving towards a negotiated deal for next year’s contract which could see a cut in QOF workload in exchange for GPs taking on 24-hour ‘named clinician’ responsibility for vulnerable elderly patients, Pulse has learned.

Dr Paul Charlson, a leading Conservative GP with close links to leading figures within both NHS England and the GPC, told Pulse there were ‘real grounds for optimism for GPs’ in the English contract negotiations and predicted they were likely to conclude ‘within three or four weeks’. Two other senior GPs familiar with the process confirmed they also expected to see a reduction in the QOF and the introduction of ‘named GP’ responsibilites.

However it is understood that a number of sticking points remain, with talks ongoing and discussions over extended hours and the removal of practice boundaries likely to be key.

Last month health secretary Jeremy Hunt set out plans for sweeping reforms to the GP contract in England from next April, which included a ‘dramatic simplification’ in ‘box-ticking’ targets and incentives and pushing for GPs to take on individual responsibility for the care of vulnerable elderly patients.

At the time, the GPC expressed concerns over Mr Hunt’s ‘named clinician’ plans unless further funding was found. But Dr Charlson said he believed negotiators were now ‘likely’ to agree to the move, with talks focusing on freeing up funding through removing some QOF targets and possibly shifting funding into the global sum.

Dr Charlson, a GP in Yorkshire and vice chair of Conservative Health, who was a close adviser to Andrew Lansley and continues to regularly meet with the Department of Health and NHS England, said he believed ministers were also keen to push ahead with changes to practice boundaries from next April. The move, which comes after an interim report into several pilots, could see patients allowed to register with a practice even if they do not live in its catchment area, but with GPs relieved of home-visiting responsibilites for those patients.

In a Big Interview with Pulse and subsequent interview on negotiations, Dr Charlson said: ‘I think GPs need to remain optimistic regarding the new contract. QOF will be simplified and some money will be shifted to global sum. There are likely to be some incentives for care of complex elderly [as part of] a move to family doctor[ing].’

‘[There is also] the likelihood of practices taking on patients out of area without home visiting responsibility.’

‘I think there are real grounds for optimism and many practices will be doing many of the new incentivised things already.’


Speaking about the ‘named clinician’ plans, he said: ‘I think there will be some negotiation around it but I think it is likely that that will be accepted. I get the gist that that is what may happen. If you are going to negotiate you have got to give a bit, and also try to see it from the public’s perspective. Joe Public is looking at “how can I get access to my GP, who is going to look after me if I fall in the middle of the night?”.’

‘The plank of the Government’s idea is to go back to the old-fashioned family doctor so they are trying to shift it back a little that way by reducing beauraucracy and giving GPs more responsibility for coordinating care. I think the percentage of pay linked to QOF will stay largely the same but that there will be fewer targets.’

He said any move to write David Cameron’s recent pledge for seven-day access to GPs into the contract was likely to prove a sticking point, however.

‘Who is going to pay for it, how are you going to fund that extra staff necessary?’ he said. ‘It has got to be viable financially if the contract is to change. So that could be a big sticking point.’

He added: ‘The 8am to 8pm [scheme] is very unlikely to be in the contract, although it is probably seen as aspirational - and 24-hour responsibility may be not as onerous as many fear.’

Dr Charlson’s analysis of negotiations was largely backed by two other senior GPs who are not directly involved in talks but are familiar with the process, and who asked not to be named. Both said they believed the GPC was set to agree to the named clinician role in exchange for a reduction in QOF targets, but that a number of sticking points remain. However they were less certain that funding removed from the QOF would be shifted into the global sum, with one saying only that there were ‘a number of options’.

GPC deputy chair Dr Richard Vautrey said: ‘It is interesting what he says, but Dr Charlson is not involved in negotiations so I think we will have to conclude negotiations and then let GPs know the full package. Negotiations are constructive and we do hope that we can reach a conclusion that GPs feel is fair and reasonable.’

‘We have always said that GPs will provide - and want to provide - good quality personalised care to the most needy members of their practice, particularly those who are vulnerable, those who are older and those with complex problems. But one of the problems that we have had in recent years, and especially in the last year, has been the huge workload and imposed box-ticking bureaucracy, which has made this particularly difficult to do. So we do need to make a significant reduction in that oppressive bureaucracy that every practice experiences. And by doing that, that will free practices and GPs up to a greater extent to be able to do things that they have been trained to do.’

On the removal of practice boundaries, he said: ‘I think our position on practice boundaries has been made very clear, and your reports in recent months showed uptake to the pilot from patients was very poor. But the Government remains committed to continuing that policy and I think we need to look at that and see how it might impact practices if it was to be rolled out on a larger scale.’

Dr Vautrey added: ‘We hope for a good outcome for all sides, but until we have actually signed the document and dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s we won’t know for sure.’

A spokesperson for NHS England said: ‘GP contract negotiations are still ongoing and it would be inappropriate for us to comment until discussions conclude.’

Related images

  • contract - online

Readers' comments (29)

  • How will this work in those practices which have replaced partners with many salaried doctors?
    Will the partners finally get their comeuppance???

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Where is the evidence that any of this is what Joe Public wants?

    The voice of the public (patients) regarding all changes to the NHS is notable by its absence, partly because there is a lack of information out there but mainly because the patients have not been asked what they think.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Surely as a GP with a contract as an independent practitioner with the NHS, I am the Named Clinician already.
    Regardless whether I am a Partner with a patient list or an Associate or Salaried GP, named on the practice computer system as the Usual GP .

    OOH will still see these patients on my behalf from 6.30pm to 8am Monday to Friday, and at weekends.

    I fear I must be missing something, and we haven't be told the full story yet.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I belong to an era when we did 168 hour weeks at times and 80 hour weekends with 4or 5 hours sleep in 80 hours. Just sleepless torture. Who was my Union / Which Union has seen it's member's fee per consultation fall 50 % in the last 9 years ? [ 25 % fall in real term pay plus an increase in consultation rate of 50%]
    Do we have an Union at all ? What would happen if the BMA did say no for a change?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The track record of this health secretary is that he will want something announceable even if there is nothing of substance behind it. Named GP may be one of those things, if in practice care delivery is delegated to another service like OOH.
    Someone actually taking responsibility for health outcomes would be looking at substance but I fear the politicians only want announcable concepts irrespective of what (if anything) they deliver

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Can we have out-pateint appointments in the evening and chest X-Rays out of hours, and see a consultant on a weekend?

    Has somebody forgotten that GP's are just human beings that do not have the mental or physical capacity to work 24/7, they have families and I think sometimes they need to sleep!

    Do I really want to be seen by a GP that has been up half the the night, physically and mentally exhausted, so much so that he hardly knows who i am?

    Should GP's really need to put patients needs before their own needs, neglect their own families, because they are out half the night looking after someone else's family, or do they have super human powers that we don't know about?

    It all sounds wonderful but the resources are just not there, unless the government is going to bring in untrained or poorly trained foreign doctors to kill a few of us off!

    It is appalling the way GP's are being treated, and so for pharmacists relieving the load on GP's, who really wants to be examined in a small room, alone with a strange male …. why not leave GP's to do what they know know best, care for their patients!

    Reopen some of the old asylums and get some help for this government, they have all gone mad!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • 24hr responsibility needs clarification. In the bad old days, if I was on holiday in Australia & employing the combined president of the RCGP+RCCOG+RCP+RCS & they cocked up, somehow it was my fault for employing an inadequate locum & I carried some liability. Surely we are not going back to this?
    However, a named clinician to be responsible for overseeing care does not mean 24hr availability, just one GP who is expected to take ownership of a patient & ensure that someone is carrying the problem & ensuring that care is coordinated for them, rather than an endless stream of different dr's none of whom wants to be in charge & plan ahead. Isn't that what we came into the job to do?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So after all that what we are to become are glorified house officers who work for consultants who order us around to chase up scans bloods referrals and put it in a nice folder except this time we GP are resposnsible if anything is a miss
    Am I reading this what you want ? And makes you wonder why at all family medicine GP exists as an option why at all..,,.?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If your not on call, who will answer their phone in the middle of the night?

    This has got to be the biggest load of bull I have heard in ages. I don't think we need get so wound up about it all these things fail. I feel sorry for those working in London as guinea pigs for Hunt, here in Wales nothing ever comes here, no poly clinics no darzi centres nothing that doesn't work ( which is most of the governments ideas)!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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

Have your say