Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Time to spit it out Mr Hunt. Just what are you asking GPs to do - and how will you pay for it?

  • Print
  • Comments (32)
  • Save

It feels like we’ve been here before. An opening salvo of pre-briefings at the weekend. Ominous rumblings from the Department of Health. A series of critical articles as the week progresses, leading up to a heavily-trailed keynote speech by the health secretary on Thursday.

Jeremy Hunt clearly felt the launch of his out-of-hours plans went so well back in May that he’d use the same template again when talking about elderly care. He’s even giving the keynote speech in the same venue - the King’s Fund.

And yet while in PR terms both launches have been an unqualified success – headlines have been generated, GPs duly bashed – the practical implications of both policies still remain entirely unclear.

In his announcement yesterday, Mr Hunt made it clear that he expects ‘named GPs’ to take on 24/7 responsibility for coordinating all of the out-of-hospital care for vulnerable older people. He expects it to happen as soon as next April, and he plans to change the GP contract to make it so. And… well, that’s all we really know.

What exactly will this ‘named GP’ responsibility entail? What will patients be told they can expect? What extra work will it involve? How does it differ from what many practices already provide? Does it simply mean a return to personal lists – and if so, why will it only initially apply to around 5% of patients?

And crucially, with practices already stretched to breaking point, how will it be resourced, if at all?

The Department of Health is keeping schtum on all of the above (it claims it can’t set out its plans until a public consultation on the care of vulnerable patients ends on 27 September, although that doesn’t seem to have deterred Mr Hunt). So for the time being GPs – and, worryingly, even the GPC  - have been left in the dark, left to second-guess how the policy will actually impact their day-to-day jobs.

But it’s not just the ‘named GP’ proposals. Back in May, after the week of out-of-hours rhetoric, I wrote a blog post attempting to summarise what we knew so far about Mr Hunt’s out-of-hours plans – and worryingly, we don’t seem to have any more detail on those yet either. They are, it seems, linked to the plans to improve elderly care, but exactly how remains unclear. We still don’t know how GPs will be held responsible for out-of-hours care. We still don’t know what levers they will be given. We still don’t know how what Mr Hunt envisages differs from the commissioning responsibility GPs have already been given. And we still don’t know how the additional responsibility will be funded.

There are two schools of thought among GPs about what this all adds up to. Some, including, for example, Londonwide LMCs chief executive Dr Michelle Drage, believe Mr Hunt sees the PR battle as an end in itself. Talk tough to the Daily Mail, be seen to ‘sort out the 2004 contract’ and score a political victory.

Others fear the reforms are much more real – that while we haven’t yet heard the detail, combined with NHS England’s wide-ranging plans to shake up practice funding they add up to a brand-new GP contract in the near future.

The truth is, we still don’t know. But in the meantime, GPs are left in limbo, and increasingly anxious as ministers ratchet up the rhetoric.

Mr Hunt may be, unlike his predecessor, stronger on the politics than on the policy, but he can only keep dodging the practical questions for so long. It’s time for the Department of Health to draw a line under a summer of sabre-rattling and set out what it actually plans to do. Sooner rather than later would be good.

Steve Nowottny is the editor of Pulse. You can follow him on Twitter @stevenowottny.

 

Readers' comments (32)

  • Vinci Ho

    Playing with political margins and gimmicks , hitting the headlines in tabloids , pretending to be listening and caring ......
    After all , quietly exercising dictatorship with virtual democracy ......
    Nature of a politician never change.
    Well done , Agent Hunt
    This message will self destruct in ten seconds.......

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What it means is Practices will have to provide a list of all over 65's taking shall we say 4 or more medications to 111 and current OOH providers.Any of these patients calling OOH will be transferred to the 'responsible' GP or his deputy(within the practice)to deal with 24/7. It's obvious that's what the DOH want.No Question!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • its rabbit out of a magicians hat act. well done

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Pay off your debts downsize and retire!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Another attempt to destroy the partnership model by driving GP partners to resign/retire/go salaried rather than put up with any more? What price continuity of care when all are salaried and employed by large businesses? Who will then be the named GP (or will that suddenly be considered unnecessary?)

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The key to improving OOH primary care is NOT 'continuity-of-care' but 'continuity-of-information'. Every GP knows the value of the 30 secs we spend scanning our computer screens before collecting the next patient from the waiting room/pressing the 'Send' button. Most important our last note entry reminds us to ask about the holiday in Tenerife that makes the patient feel we care (which we do). Why oh why has the GP establishment at every level blocked the universal sharing of medical records? Are we really so worried about confidentiality or did we regard this issue as a side skirmish that we could 'win'? I fear, on this matter, we are reaping what we have sown. The solution: Volte face - we must throw our support behind 'continuity-of-information' with all urgency.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • As a patient with a long term progressive condition which doesn't necessarily behave "according to the textbook", I wish to "like" the comment by David Lewis at 6.38pm. I always thought information sharing, so the hospital knows what your GP knows if you end up in A&E for example, would be eminently sensible. Until that time, I carry with me at all times a letter my GP wrote when I went on holiday in case I had to go to hospital, attached to a copy of my medication list...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • There is a right way and a wrong way to try to persuade burnt out GPs to try to prop up an ailing NHS. Mr Hunt consistently hits all the wrong notes.When is there going to be sensible advice given from grass roots GPs that gets listened to, or am I correct in assuming there is no wish to listen, just to score cheap political points whilst Rome burns to the ground?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is all about control and its time that GPs took some of it back!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Come on GPs we must rise up together!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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

Have your say

  • Print
  • Comments (32)
  • Save