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
Advertisement
  • 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
Debate & Analysis

GP induction and refresher and retainer schemes: are they cost-effective?

Michael Harris, Jim Morison and Paul Main
British Journal of General Practice 2014; 64 (618): 46-47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp14X676582
Michael Harris
Associate Postgraduate, School of Primary Care, Severn Deanery, Hambrook, Bristol.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jim Morison
Associate Postgraduate, School of Primary Care, Severn Deanery, Hambrook, Bristol.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Main
Deputy Director, School of Primary Care, Severn Deanery, Hambrook, Bristol.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

INTRODUCTION

There are many reasons why doctors may not wish to commit fully to a lifetime’s work in the NHS. However, the early loss of GPs is contributing to the impending GP workforce crisis. The Retainer and Induction & Refresher (I&R) schemes help to keep or reintroduce GPs in the workforce, but at a time of intense budgetary restrictions there is pressure to review the limited funding that supports them. This article analyses how cost-effective they are.

The Department of Health (DoH) has set a target that one-half of all UK medical graduates entering postgraduate specialty training should go into GP training.1 However, according to the Centre for Workforce Intelligence (CfWI),2 we are 550 short of the target, therefore undertraining GPs by approximately 18% per year. It is possible to increase the number of UK GPs by:

  1. increasing the number of students in UK medical schools and then GP training;

  2. raising the number of medical graduates who go through GP training;

  3. attracting more EU-trained GPs and providing them with an induction to prepare them for UK general practice;

  4. bringing more GPs back to practice after a career break; and

  5. retaining more GPs who, principally because of domestic commitments, can only undertake a small amount of paid professional work.

The first two options have significant time and cost implications. It costs £488 730 for a student to complete undergraduate medical school and then GP training,3 while the cost of a GP training programme for a medical graduate is £196 500 (£11 600 per subsequent working year using peak joiner and median retirement ages calculated from NHS Information Centre data4). This article makes an economic appraisal of current use of the other three options outlined above.

JOINING AND LEAVING PRACTICE

The peak age for doctors joining the GP Medical Performers’ List (MPL) over the 10 years from 2001–2010 was 32 years.4Figure 1 shows an analysis of the data for the ages of males and females leaving general practice.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Ages of males and females leaving general practice 2001–2010.

Both lines are bimodal, but the sex difference is striking: of the 11 633 doctors that left general practice in 2001–2010, the peak age for females leaving the MPL was 35 years, while for males it was 57 years. Sixty per cent of the female leavers were below the age of 45 years, compared to 28% of males. The NHS Information Centre data show no subsequent ‘bulge’ in the figures for joiners, suggesting that few doctors rejoin at later stages in their careers.

THE INDUCTION & REFRESHER SCHEME

The I&R scheme (formerly the Returner scheme) aims to reintroduce GPs to practice following career breaks and provides an entry for EU doctors. It allows doctors a maximum of 6 months full-time equivalent supervised work in an approved general practice as part of a competency-based programme.

A Committee of General Practice Education Directors (COGPED) position paper5 recommends that, if a doctor has had ≥2 years of absence from NHS general practice, the likelihood of waning skills means that further assessment and, if required, retraining will be needed before starting back in practice. Under the 2004 Performers’ List regulations,6 those with responsibility for local licensing must ensure that a doctor returning to the workforce has retained the competences expected of a GP. This was reiterated by the House of Commons Health Committee report7 following the inquiry into the Daniel Ubani case.

Doctors who have been through the I&R scheme have been shown to deliver additional elements to primary care, such as teaching and training responsibilities, and involvement with local management and clinical commissioning groups (J Morison, personal communication, 2012).

THE RETAINER SCHEME

The aim of the Retainer scheme is to preserve the skills of doctors who, for varying reasons but principally domestic, wish to avoid complete career breaks by reducing their clinical commitment and workload while working in a supportive environment. Help and advice from a named deanery-approved supervisor must be available and the scheme should provide a wide experience of general medical services.8 While it is possible that some of these doctors would remain in the workforce without the Retainer scheme, for others absence from the workplace would result in their skills waning: the Retainer scheme is designed to allow doctors to keep up-to-date and further develop their careers.

Our own research (Young et al, unpublished data, 2013) shows that the Retainer scheme is highly valued by its members. As well as being used while raising families, it is used by carers and those that suffer from illness or disability. Retained doctors report that the scheme provides a framework that is tailored to their needs and enables them to feel valued.

THE COSTS OF THE SCHEMES

We have used London Deanery data (P Trafford, unpublished data, 2013) to calculate the I&R scheme cost per expected subsequent year of work, by dividing their scheme costs by the number of years that I&R doctors are subsequently expected to remain in practice. This results in a figure of £1240 for UK-trained GPs and £1160 for EU-trained doctors. This analysis includes payment of a salary equivalent to a GP specialist trainee (GP ST3).

For Retainers, the cost to the Severn Deanery is £4430 per expected subsequent year of work.

In comparison, the cost of a full GP training scheme is £11 600 per expected subsequent year of work (£19 650 for females, £7860 for males).

DISCUSSION

We were surprised at the high proportion of GPs, particularly females, leaving general practice at a young age. We need to consider how best to support workforce retention in this group.

The Royal College of General Practitioners recommends that doctors complete a minimum of 200 clinical half-day sessions over the 5-year revalidation cycle.9 Those who have been working abroad or on other career breaks may find this challenging without the I&R and Retainer schemes.

Estimating costs per expected subsequent year of work depends on a prediction of how long each I&R or Retainer doctor will remain in the workforce. Our analysis assumes that the typical leaving ages derived from the NHS Information Centre data will apply to these groups.

Data published by the CfWI10 suggest that overall participation rates (the average proportion of full-time equivalent working) were 0.94 for male and 0.83 for female GPs in 2008–2011. We found that, while 24% of Retained doctors subsequently became GP Principals and 47% continued as salaried doctors, few returned to full-time work, most having a participation rate between 0.4 and 0.6, similar to that of the post-I&R doctors that we surveyed.8

CONCLUSION

We are under-training GPs by 550 per year, and GP training costs £11 600 per subsequent working year. In addition, there is a time lag of at least 4 years between an increase in recruitment to GP training and the resulting fully-trained GPs.

Therefore, it appears that the average cost of £4430 per subsequent working year for doctors going through the Retainer scheme is, in spite of all the caveats to the calculation of that figure, good value for money. If Retainer doctors are lost to the workforce where it is not in use, the arguments in this article suggest that the Retainer scheme is cost-effective. This is still the case even if a proportion of Retainer doctors would have continued work without the scheme: if only one in four Retainers is truly retained by the scheme, the cost per subsequent year worked is still less than that of a female doctor going through GP training.

The arguments for supporting the I&R scheme are even stronger, with the cost for UK-trained GPs approximating to £1240 per subsequent working year. This includes the cost of a salary during the Refresher months. Attracting doctors to the scheme by making it fully financed and salaried makes sound economic sense.

Notes

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2014

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. NHS Careers
    General practice, http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/explore-by-career/doctors/careers-in-medicine/general-practice/ (accessed 9 Dec 2013).
  2. 2.↵
    1. Centre for Workforce Intelligence
    (2011) General practice: CfWI medical fact sheets and summary sheets — August 2011 (CfWI, London).
  3. 3.↵
    1. Curtis L
    Unit costs of health and social care 2011, http://www.pssru.ac.uk/archive/pdf/uc/uc2011/uc2011.pdf (accessed 9 Dec 2013).
  4. 4.↵
    (2012) NHS Information Centre for Health & Social Care 2012: General & Personal Medical Services England 2001–2011 (Office for National Statistics, Leeds).
  5. 5.↵
    1. Committee of General Practice Education Directors
    (2012) GP induction and refresher-returner schemes revised 2012 (COGPED, London) http://www.cogped.org.uk/document_store/1354027303tyet_cogped_induction_and_refresher-returner_schemes_(revised_nov_2012).pdf (accessed 9 Dec 2013).
  6. 6.↵
    1. The National Health Service (Performers Lists) Regulations 2004
    , Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 585. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/585/contents/made (accessed 3 Dec 2013).
  7. 7.↵
    1. Response to the House of Commons Health Committee report
    (2010) The use of overseas doctors in providing out of hours services, www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7904/7904.pdf (accessed 3 Dec 2013).
  8. 8.↵
    1. Department of Health
    (1999) GP Retainer Scheme guidance on the educational aspects of the scheme Health Service Circular HSC 1999/004 (DoH, London).
  9. 10.↵
    1. Royal College of General Practitioners
    (2012) Guide to revalidation of general practitioners v70 (RCGP, London).
  10. 11.
    1. Centre for Workforce Intelligence
    (March, 2013) GP in-depth review: preliminary findings (CfWI, London).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 64 (618)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 64, Issue 618
January 2014
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Download PowerPoint
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.
GP induction and refresher and retainer schemes: are they cost-effective?
(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
GP induction and refresher and retainer schemes: are they cost-effective?
Michael Harris, Jim Morison, Paul Main
British Journal of General Practice 2014; 64 (618): 46-47. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp14X676582

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
GP induction and refresher and retainer schemes: are they cost-effective?
Michael Harris, Jim Morison, Paul Main
British Journal of General Practice 2014; 64 (618): 46-47. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp14X676582
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
    • INTRODUCTION
    • JOINING AND LEAVING PRACTICE
    • THE INDUCTION & REFRESHER SCHEME
    • THE RETAINER SCHEME
    • THE COSTS OF THE SCHEMES
    • DISCUSSION
    • CONCLUSION
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • SAFER diagnosis: a teaching system to help reduce diagnostic errors in primary care
  • An Australian reflects on the Collings report 70 years on
  • Emergencies in general practice: could checklists support teams in stressful situations?
Show more Debate & Analysis

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