Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Letters

The White Paper: a framework for survival?

Steve Ford
British Journal of General Practice 2010; 60 (579): 777-778. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp10X532440
Steve Ford
Five Stones, Heugh House Lane, Haydon Bridge, NE47 6HJ. E-mail:
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: mail@stevenford.co.uk
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Your editorial ‘The White Paper’ highlights the futility of past and present reforms.1 The urgent need to get it right cannot be understated. There are common themes to the past and present failures from which all should learn. If clinicians are permitted to concentrate on clinical work, productivity, and quality, then morale would rocket upwards.

The NHS exists to ameliorate the fear of illness, injury, suffering, and death; the preventative and public health elements are subsumed within this. It does not have to do everything for everyone all the time.

Taking the consultation as the starting point, proper assessment and advice about anything, any time, anywhere, for free — in person, by phone, by email/SMS, by Skype, or whatever — is the first requirement. People access health care because they do not have the answer to a concern. The access points must be immediate, effortless, ubiquitous, and 24/7. It has been my experience that when patients know that an immediate response is a button press away, they are apt to relax and use the system to best effect of their own accord.

Consider the ‘pyramid of care'. There is a vast stratum of minor and self-limiting conditions for which, after proper assessment, no treatment or self treatment is appropriate. The NHS should not bear the cost of any of this treatment. In time, the high street pharmacy would become the first port of call for much of this morbidity, thus freeing primary care to focus further up the pyramid. The savings in prescriptions would be vast and the funds released can percolate up the pyramid, easing the pressure on funding high tech, high cost treatments. With the high street pharmacy shouldering the greater part of minor and self-limiting morbidity, that part of pharmacy which is of the greatest direct value to primary care should be fully integrated with it. All primary care teams should have a resident pharmacist and dispensary that can optimise all aspects of therapeutic usage in real time and on site.

Further up the pyramid are those common non-red-flag conditions, for which treatment can be more appropriate, but which may lack objective confirmation of significant pathology. In the absence of this confirmation, treatment should rely on self treatment, private prescription, and/or lifestyle change. Where there is objective confirmation of significant pathology then the NHS should start to pay for treatment.

Malignancy is subject to populist political exploitation (2-week waits and cancer funds, for example); this must stop. We need to move away from any wait at all for those with confirmed or suspected malignancy. Faced with the possibility or reality of life-shortening illness, most people would be prepared to drop everything immediately and travel from Lands’ End to John O'Groats within the hour if it would help — and who is to say it wouldn't?

Every county should have an immediate, same hour, referral service for all suspected or confirmed new cases of malignancy. In such a unit, all protocols would be fully up to date and instantly initiated with physical, psychological, and social support given. Appropriate baseline investigations would be performed at first attendance, including all imaging modalities, biopsies, and endoscopic assessment. Follow-up appointments or admissions would be organised. Why not?

The pernicious impulse to eliminate variability must be recast as a determination to promote properly exercised clinical autonomy while eliminating feckless eclecticism. The tabloid mania over postcode lottery treatment must be deflected by permitting variation in service by area when it has the informed consent of the affected population.

The bottom line is that unless all the involved professions assert themselves decisively and coherently, the NHS is lost. You asked for a bolder and more imaginative approach — this is my offering in outline.

Competing interest

In 2008, at the age of 55, I retired from general practice, primarily to register the withdrawal of my consent from what has been and is being done to the NHS. I stood as an Independent in the 2010 general election, with health as one of the main elements of my campaign: I got 1974 votes, coming 28th in the UK among Independent candidates.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2010.

REFERENCE

  1. ↵
    1. Jones R
    (2010) The White Paper: a framework for survival? Br J Gen Pract 60(578):635–636.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 60 (579)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 60, Issue 579
October 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The White Paper: a framework for survival?
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The White Paper: a framework for survival?
Steve Ford
British Journal of General Practice 2010; 60 (579): 777-778. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp10X532440

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
The White Paper: a framework for survival?
Steve Ford
British Journal of General Practice 2010; 60 (579): 777-778. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp10X532440
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • Competing interest
    • REFERENCE
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Two-tiered medicine: the increasing disparity in medical care in the UK
  • MRCGP Recorded Consultation Assessment — the hidden fourth construct
  • Prostate-specific antigen testing and opportunistic prostate cancer screening — CAP intervention
Show more Letters

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242