This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

A faulty production line

RCGP council candidates pledge to tackle GP workload

Potential candidates for RCGP Council have called for a new GP contract, greater autonomy for the profession and opposition to the Government’s health reforms in their mission statements published this week.

Seven of the 18 candidates mention the contract changes or extra workload pressures faced by GPs in their statements to be elected as one of the six national representatives on council.

This follows comments made by new RCGP chair-elect Dr Maureen Baker, who told Pulse that workload pressures were the main challenge facing the profession.

In a sign that the College will focus on GP workload in the coming year, RCGP Council candidate and GPC deputy chair Dr Richard Vautrey said: ‘I know that GPs are struggling to cope with an ever increasing workload and are worn down by constant organisational change.’

Surrey GP Dr Pete Deveson went even further, called for a new GP contract. He said in his statement: ‘I’d like to see a simplified, less intrusive GP contract with the patient returned to the centre of the healthcare debate’

Dr Simon Gregory, a GP in Northhampton, said in his statement: ‘We remain under threat. With the challenges of GP bashing, commissioning with financial ischaemia, revalidation, and trainees facing ever-increasing costs yet low prospective incomes.’

Other candidates include current RCGP revalidation lead Dr Nigel Sparrow, Professor Bill Irish, the vice-chair of COGPED and two Pulse bloggers: Dr Martin Brunet and Dr Margaret McCartney.

The other candidates are: Dr John Cosgrove, Dr Chandra Kanneganti, Dr Terry Kemple, Dr Una Coales, Dr Ben Riley, Dr Simon Gregory, Dr Alan Hassey, Dr Nigel Mathers, Dr Jonathon Tomlinson, Dr Jaspreet Grewal, Dr Stuart Sutton and Dr Dom Patterson.

Readers' comments (2)

  • Vinci Ho

    One would hope this is not just about rhetoric but really about ' something ' needs to be done , dare to be done in real terms .
    New contract?? One also hope this will not set up your own trap for the government to take more advantages on you.........

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Either we are a bunch of dummies or we can and will stand on our own two feet. First things first - define safe working hours and number of consultations per GP per day. Also number of appointments per thousand patients per year.
    This arithmetic is necessary for transparency for all parties.
    The disconnect between the DOH who say GP provision of care is inadequate versus the GP viewpoint of excess work and everyone leaving, is clarified and can only be understood by all with numbers - hours and patients.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say