Joint Statement: RCGP - GPC Too few doctors to do the work of NHS plan say GP leaders

(issued Wednesday 2 Aug 2000)

GP leaders have issued their first detailed assessment of the implications of the English NHS Plan for patients, the NHS and general practice. In a joint response, the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) and the British Medical Association's General Practitioners Committee (GPC) address a number of key areas including the GP workforce, professional isolation, access, contractual arrangements and intermediate care.

Both the RCGP and the GPC express profound disappointment at the limited planned expansion of the general practice workforce - an extra 480 doctors a year over the next four years. The annual appraisal proposal alone will require 600 doctors to do the work. RCGP Chairman Professor Mike Pringle said:

"We need more GPs just to cope with current patient demand. But the NHS Plan proposes an appraisal system by 2001. This will need one whole time equivalent GP for every 50 GPs - an extra 600 GPs a year. Not only will there not be enough doctors to do the everyday work, we are being asked to take on extra tasks."

On 48 hour access to a GP for routine matters by 2004 as proposed in the NHS Plan, the joint response says:

"… the proposed targets on access to primary care are unrealistic and could only be achieved after a much greater investment in the capacity of general practice than presently proposed and a campaign of public awareness."

Both organisations welcome the increased focus on public involvement and partnership in the health service. The new measures proposed, including Patients' Forums and patient held records could help inform and empower patients and give them an enhanced sense of public ownership of the NHS.

The GPC and RCGP are wary of the proposal to expand Personal Medical Services (PMS) in preference to the General Medical Services (GMS) contract. Dr Hamish Meldrum, joint deputy chairman of the GPC said:

“We do not believe it is in patients’ or the profession’s interests for there to be an unseemly rush into PMS. There should not be any coercion, either implicit or explicit, to do so. All general practitioners choosing the PMS option must do so voluntarily, preferably when informed by the pilot evaluation.”

Family doctor leaders welcome the proposal to form an occupational health service for GPs and their staff but are concerned about how the proposed targets on access to primary care could affect an already stressed primary care workforce.

The joint RCGP/GPC statement is an initial response and more detailed statements will be published once the Plan has been subject to full consultation within both organisations.

Ends