This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

In full: What do GPs think of Jeremy Hunt's GP reforms?

Read the full results of Pulse’s survey of 700 GPs on the changes the health secretary wants to see in the GP contract.

Jeremy Hunt has said he wants to see ‘profound reform’ of general practice by next April, and has set out a series of changes he intends to make to the GP contract. Which measures do you support?


Introducing ‘named’ GPs with 24/7 responsibility for vulnerable patients

Oppose – 71%

Support – 10%

Not sure – 19%


Reducing ‘tick-box’ medicine through shrinking the QOF

Oppose – 7%

Support –  73%

Not sure – 20%


Increasing the overall proportion of GP funding going into primary care

Oppose – 3%

Support –  87%

Not sure – 10%


Expanding the GP workforce by recruiting at least 2,000 additional GPs

Oppose – 3%

Support –  86%

Not sure – 11%


Widening online access for patients

Oppose – 26%

Support –  34%

Not sure – 40%


What is your overall impression of the measures taken as a whole

Oppose - 44%

Support - 9%

Not sure - 47%


Source: Pulse survey of 690 GPs


If ministers and the GPC are again unable to reach agreement on the GP contract, and the Department of Health imposes contract changes as they did this year in England, would you support industrial action?

Yes – 62%

No – 22%

Don’t know – 16%


Source: Pulse survey of 734 GPs


About the survey

Pulse launched this survey of readers on 15 October, collating responses using the SurveyMonkey tool. The 26 questions asked covered a wide range of GP topics, to avoid selection bias on any one issue. The survey was advertised to readers via our website and email newsletters, with a prize draw for a Samsung Tab 2 tablet as an incentive to complete the survey.

As part of the survey, respondents were asked to specify their job title. A small number of non-GPs were screened out to analyse the results for this question. GPs were also asked on a voluntary basis to provide their GMC number and 549 of the 647 GP respondents did so, although these were not verified or used to screen out respondents.

Readers' comments (3)

  • Harry Longman

    On specifics, 3 out of 5 are strongly supported, one strongly opposed, one so-so. But overall, strongly opposed. Can anyone explain the conundrum?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • A few valid sceptical points :
    1. The existing IT systems are not ready to offer safe online access, let alone the political and confidentiality debate - this may happen as a dedicated 5 year programme.
    2. More GPs are good and an easy answer, however it also means a drop in income for existing GPs. Think about it - if there was only £100 and there are 10 GPs in the system, each takes £10, when the Government insists that there is still only £100 even though we have say an increased number of 12 GP's we are expected to take a 20% pay cut to fit in additional GPs or there will be unemployment .
    3. Named GPs - unsure what this means - we are still the names GP for our patients , even though responsibility passes on to he OOH, as long as realistic OOH cover funding based on existing spending is added to the contract, we might find that it may work out financially better for GPs as we would find cost effective OOH solutions for patients. As it stands now - am OOH GP or Nurse clinician or ECP sees the patient and passes on all of the follow on and donkeys work over to us in the morning anyway !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • More fund will be available for more GP recruitment for efficient BASIC care if we choose carefully from below. It is a political decision and responsibility is being passed to GPs (again passing the buck) quite inappropriately, simply because politicians do not have guts to tell the truth to the public!
    We need to have a mature debate about NHS funding and chose from below :

    Plan A : If you want all inclusive NHS (i.e. IVF, Botox, Acupuncture, Bariatric surgery for all, Keloid removal etc) then we all need to pay in more tax to fund this all inclusive service!

    Plan B: Basic/ Essential package i.e. life saving procedure, elderly care, maternity and children service etc then there is a chance that the current funding may work if we plan ahead and emphasise on cost-effectiveness. We need to have a national guidance not a post code lottery.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say