‘Access isn’t the same as care; technology alone won’t fix general practice’
Having attended the launch event for our white paper on general practice access, Dr Samira Anane argues the NHS cannot rely solely on technology to solve the problem
In September, I travelled from Manchester to Liverpool to join GPs, journalists, and policymakers at the Labour Party conference, where I joined a panel titled ‘Chat GP’ – AI and the family doctor of the future as part of Pulse publisher Cogora’s launch of its white paper into access in general practice. The panel discussed where artificial intelligence (AI) could solve the access crisis that we are seeing in general practice.
The debate was lively. There was a real optimism about technology’s potential to reduce bureaucracy and connect patients to care faster. But underneath the enthusiasm was frustration and concern. Access is being redefined around convenience and speed – rather than long term investment into the benefits value around holistic, continuity of care.
In surgeries like mine in Manchester, the real bottleneck isn’t technology – it’s capacity. GPs are managing more patients than ever, with fewer doctors, rising patient need, and less time. Digital tools can speed up communication, but they cannot replace a GP who not only knows their patients’ histories, circumstances, and families, but also knows the patient themselves. Simply put, digital tools cannot rebuild trust in the NHS or deliver the continuity and holistic care that keeps patients healthy, improves patient experience and reduces demand on the healthcare system as a whole.
The political obsession with ‘access’ risks missing the point. Expanding online triage and booking systems without safeguards, and without expanding the workforce, simply moves the pressure around. Metrics reward speed of contact, not quality of care. Patients have made it known time and again that they want to be seen quickly and consistently. These goals should reinforce one another, not compete.
For many patients, especially those who may be vulnerable, older, or have complex needs, access means being understood as a whole person, not just being seen as a single condition or episode. And for GPs, access without capacity or safeguards leads to burnout and fragmented care – epidemics which we’ve seen play out for years.
If the Government’s plans for the NHS are to make a real difference, they must go beyond apps and algorithms. We need investment in to general practice: the building block of the NHS, to enable GP recruitment, retention, and employment, as well as ensuring patients are informed and aware of all the ways they can interact with the NHS – in the way that works best for them.
AI and digital innovation absolutely have a place in general practice – it would be unrealistic and antiquated to think otherwise, and GPs are not the ‘laggards’ that some in the Government have called us. These tools can help manage workloads, support diagnoses, and improve efficiency. But they are a supporting act, not the main character.
The future of access depends on rebuilding the GP workforce that holds the NHS together – ensuring that every patient can see a GP who knows them, not just anyone who’s available.
You can find a summary of the panel event here, as well as a video of the whole debate below:
Dr Samira Anane is a GP in Manchester and spokesperson for Rebuild GP
If you want to read the Access All Areas report, click here to download the full whitepaper. GPs can download it for free.
Commercial partner of this white paper: General Practice Solutions
Have you got a view you want to share with Pulse?
We’re always open to first-hand pieces and opinions from GPs.
Email your piece for consideration to be published on our site.
Related Articles
READERS' COMMENTS [2]
Please note, only GPs are permitted to add comments to articles
Excellent article Dr Anane. For too long the government of the day has purposefully conflated access with effective, properly funded primary healthcare. General practice has endeavoured to provide this IN SPITE of the persistent distraction policies of successive governments. Politicians purposefully attempt to hoodwink the public with statements about ‘investing in access’ as though that is the endpoint of the process. Meanwhile they deflect and distract when called upon to provide the resources required to fund the activity beneath the access tip of the general practice iceberg. Making contact is the inexpensive bit. Having sufficient doctor, nurse and – where appropriate and when evidence shows outcomes are better, ARRS input (i’m still awaiting the data backing this up….) – capacity to keep up with ‘improved’ access is the far more valuable element in the process. And it costs money. Lots of money. But far less than it will cost in the absence of properly funded general practice.
Some Health ministers might seek to blam GPs for this, and tell them that it is because GPs are refusing to update themselves to make the new tech more accessible to their patients…….