Overall, 41 French GPs completed an induction programme, but eight did not remain in the UK and were unavailable for interview. The remaining GPs in the programme (n = 33) were invited for interview and of those, 31 (94%) agreed to participate. Twelve responders were female. The median age was 43 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 35–48 years), with a median of 8 years' (IQR = 4–19 years') experience working as a GP. We found that decisions to migrate tended to be influenced by a series of integrated factors, each contributing to a process of migration. This process involved consideration of what we have identified as:
Presumably, there are also a number of mitigating factors that might prevent an individual from migrating, although we were not able to distinguish these in our interviews.
Instigating factors
Responders tended to place much more emphasis on the many instigating factors that led to migration than they did on activating or facilitating factors. Thus, the impetus to change their current situation appeared to be the main driving force, rather than any immediate desire to work in England. We categorised instigating factors into two broad groups: personal and professional.
Personal factors. The most common personal instigating factors were a general desire for a life change and the chance to experience a different culture. These appeared to stimulate migration in GPs of all ages, including those with young families. Many responders had already lived and worked in countries other than France before coming to England and could be classified as ‘adventurers’ who frequently sought new life experiences. For example, one GP spoke about having worked in Cambodia before coming to England and then finding it difficult to settle down to everyday life in France:
‘When I came back [to France] at the beginning of May of this year I worked as a local GP in France. But you know, because I've travelled a lot it was a little bit hard for me to settle again in another country, another city. For me it's boring … it's more exciting you know to be French and living in London than to be French and living in Paris.’ (GP 12.)
A general feeling of restlessness instigated migration not only for those who had travelled previously, but also among GPs whose career and personal lives were following a more conventional path:
‘I thought, okay, I am 28/29, I've got my children, my husband, a house, a car, you know I've everything and I could actually settle down and live that life for evermore. And it didn't really suit me. I wasn't really happy with that thought, so I just thought it might be a good idea to maybe try and do something else.’ (GP 15.)
Whether these GPs will eventually settle in England or move on to another country is not clear, although at interview they generally expressed a desire to remain for at least 1 or 2 years.
Around a third of responders were from an ethnic minority group. Several spoke about wanting to live and work somewhere that they felt had a more tolerant and accepting attitude towards non-white doctors. Although few responders stated that their ethnic origins alone prompted them to migrate, the following comment suggests that a sense of not belonging to, or being accepted in, French culture might be an important factor instigating migration:
‘The main reason [for leaving France] is … not because of the medical system, but due to the social difficulties. I mean, I am a black man. I was born in France and I grew up in France. But the social way means that I'm not French, even if I have a French passport. So it's quite difficult to stay in a country that you think is yours, but people remind you that it's not really yours. Your country is overseas … In my job, several times I met difficulties to progress.’ (GP 24.)
Professional factors. Professional instigating factors appeared to have a powerful impact on decisions to relocate. They included working long hours, being on call, meeting the demands of patients, and having to deal with the business side of general practice. Most of the GPs interviewed spoke about working some 60–70 hours a week:
‘The problem in France is that you have no time. You arrive in your surgery, you see a lot of patients. It's really a long day and it is 10 home visits per day. I chose to begin at 10:00 in the morning, but I also finish at 8:00/9:00 in the evening and I come back home at 9:30/10:00, so it was very difficult. And it is very common for French GPs to work like that. But the problem was, I have three children and it was too much for me …’ (GP 17.)
There was also little opportunity for GPs to work part time, which was particularly difficult for women who had families, or for doctors wanting to pursue other professional or personal interests:
‘I've got three children and my husband has a lot of time [off from work], but I've never had time. And it's difficult to work part time as a doctor in France.’ (GP 23.)
Specifically, the fee-for-service health system in France, whereby patients pay the doctor directly and later claim back the cost from the government, was viewed as unsatisfactory and frustrating. Doctors often felt the need to comply with patients' demands for treatments, drugs or diagnoses regardless of their professional judgement. This scenario was exacerbated by French patients' ability to change GPs at will and to go directly to specialists without a referral. As some GPs suggested, if the doctor does not comply with the patients' wishes, he or she stands to lose income:
‘There is too much money in [the] relationship with patient[s]. When you see a patient he has his needs and a cheque in one hand, and if you don't answer to his needs you don't have your cheque. By example, if [the patient] wants to stop work he says to you, “I want to stop work,” and he has his cheque, and if you don't want to do what he wants, he says, “Oh, I am looking for another doctor,” so it's not a good relationship. The patients are controlling the system by the money.’ (GP 30.)
‘When patients came to see us, they always wanted a list of medicine and so on and lots of things, and then it's free and they have the right to have nearly everything, and I wasn't agreeing with that. I didn't want to continue in such way … if we would have not moved I think I would have changed my work.’ (GP 21.)
Moreover, although responders did not feel that poor pay was an instigating factor for coming to England, they did cite high rates of taxation in France as a disincentive to earn more money by seeing more patients or working long hours:
‘Income taxes in France are very high. They are very high. And if you work more and more, you pay more and more taxes.’ (GP 30.)
Activating factors
Activating factors crystallised responders' vague goals or hopes about working outside of France. Responders highlighted a number of factors that fostered the perception that England provided possibilities for better working conditions, professional development, and personal opportunities.
In response to the professional instigating factors that they felt ‘pushed’ them away from France, responders enthused about the option to work part time or fewer hours, and to have no on-call commitments in England:
‘[The advertisement] said “No visits, no home calls, no long hours, eight sessions of only of 3.5 hours,” so if you look at all the conditions you realise you're working too hard [in France]!’ (GP 4.)
Of particular importance was the prospect of being salaried as it was seen to remove the business aspect of the work, and by not having to physically take money from the patient within the consultation, it was easier to facilitate a therapeutic, rather than consumerist, dialogue:
‘… a good point for my decision to come, [is that] you will be a salaried GP … when I saw that in England GPs are salaried — and my duty is only taking care of patients and not also bothering with all the money and financial problems and everything — I was very surprised … If it's a private GP I would never come here to work, having all the difficulties too.’ (GP 14.)
Further, the French GPs felt that the opportunity to be salaried freed them from the need to either buy their practices or to work as long-term locums, which usually entailed travelling around the country to fill vacancies as they arose.
English general practice also appealed to responders because they believed it provided an environment where GPs worked together as opposed to the French norm of individual practitioners working in isolation or in competition with their colleagues. Having spoken to other French GPs who had come to work in England and visited London before applying for the induction programme, one GP was motivated to follow through his application as the teamwork environment looked appealing:
‘… one of reasons why I came here was probably because Doctor K [from the recruitment agency] told us that it was teamwork [here in England] and he showed us a surgery … which is a really nice and good one and everyone has a room there. And even in this surgery there [are] … you know midwives, [the] community team, [and] they have their proper room. Some social workers have their proper room — they are working in the community and that sort of team work or network — I would like to work like this.’ (GP 22.)
Likewise, another responder considered this environment of working in a team an activating factor:
‘In France we are alone. We don't work in a team. We can be lots of doctors who are working, but it's not like a team … in England you are a country of community, in France we are a country of individuality, so it makes all the difference.’ (GP 21.)
Activating factors also related to the desire to develop professionally, opportunities for which were deemed scarce in France. These included undertaking further study and doing research either within practice or at an academic institution. On the whole, the English medical education system appeared to be held in high esteem mainly because, within the published medical literature, the UK contribution was felt to be particularly prestigious:
‘In France we have less possibilities than here in London. In England if you want to study and work at the same time, it's possible. If you want to do some research and working as a GP, it's possible as well. It's really complicated in France. You have to find some partner and share the surgery and say “ok, now I want to work part time” and you have to find time to research or study for yourself. There is no support like the NHS that can provide you with some special training.’ (GP 12.)
‘English … Anglo-Saxon books are the best medical books in the world … when I was a student I heard a lot of good things about the whole system in England. There were two things — the books and the medical knowledge. Both are [of] a very good, a very good level.’ (GP 11.)
Responders also considered the opportunity to learn or improve English to be a positive factor for themselves and their families. This aspect was decisive for many responders, as an understanding of English medical terminology was viewed as imperative for those who thought they might subsequently want to work in other English-speaking countries or for organisations such as Médecins sans Frontières:
‘So when I have seen [the advert] I say why not to go in England and see a very big opportunity which is given? And for me when I come here I come for a purpose to see if I understand the English system. Then I will be able to practice anywhere in the world. And I discuss with my wife and my children, and they said, “Oh why not? We can go”. If they come with me they will pick up English. So after that they will be able also to go anywhere.’ (GP 14.)
‘Also, I need to improve my English because when I was in the field working for Médecins sans Frontières they needed you to speak fluent English. It's quite hard to communicate with people and English is an international language.’ (GP 12.)
A further important attraction was the chance to work and live in London, which was perceived to be an exciting city. None of the responders spoke about the prospect of working in a relatively deprived part of London as being off-putting:
‘London, you know, is a vibrant town. Life is in London —everybody says that. It's the main town of Europe … although Paris is working hard.’ (GP 15.)
Facilitating factors
Facilitating factors were highly influential in the final stage of the migration process and helped responders to realise their desire to relocate. Indeed, some responders suggested that without these factors they would not have considered moving to England:
‘For me the best thing [about the induction course] was to do with all the paperwork, because by myself I couldn't do that. Because it was too difficult with the General Medical Council. It was too much … You need jabs and so many forms and back-up details. If they hadn't explained that, we wouldn't know what to do.’ (GP 4.)
The provision of a salaried induction programme appeared to sway the GPs' decisions to come to England rather than go to another country. The length of the programme (currently 10 weeks) appeared to be positively influential; responders expressed reluctance to enter a full 2-year (re)training programme:
Researcher:‘You've spoken to me about your girlfriend living in Canada. Why not choose there?’
GP30:‘Yes, but it's very difficult to work in Canada … you have to pass an exam first and if you are [a] success, you are on [an] induction programme [for] 2 years.’
Ease of travel was also an important facilitating factor. Many responders remarked on the speed and low cost of travelling back to France, allowing them to participate in the induction course before bringing over their families.
