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
Editorials

Building equity in the NHS: the role of general practice

Graham Watt
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (685): 374-375. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X704693
Graham Watt
University of Glasgow, Glasgow.
Roles: Emeritus Professor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

INTRODUCTION

The NHS promise of comprehensive health care based on need and free at the point of use trips off the tongue, but has been hard to deliver especially in primary care. Formula-driven resource redistribution has worked in the hospital sector, steadily shifting resource according to need as measured by mortality rates, but not in general practice, where the distribution of general practice funding remains out of kilter with social gradients in premature multimorbidity and mortality.1,2 The metaphor of a level playing field does not apply. Health care is built on a slope. Life and work are easier at the top.

As Levene et al report in this issue of the BJGP,3 the UK GP Contract continues to serve poor areas poorly. By using measures of activity as proxy measures of need, the funding formula rewards the expressed needs and demands which keep practices busy, such as the needs of patients who have acquired longevity and the demands of the worried well.

The unworried unwell, who often censor themselves, need a worried doctor but worried doctors need adequate consultation time, a long view, supportive colleagues, and effective referral links, all of which may be in short supply.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC, www.cqc.org.uk) rates 6947 general practices in NHS England in terms of being safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well-led — 90% are rated as ‘good’ and 5% as ‘outstanding’.The high prevalence of ‘good’ practices provides an explanation of the inverse care law,4 not in terms of the difference between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ medical care, but as the difference between what practices serving deprived areas can do and could do if they were better resourced.

THE GP CONTRACT AS A BLIND ALLEY

The difference is unlikely to be bridged via a GP contract that leaves it to individual practices to decide how much practice income is ‘profit’ and how much is to be spent on service delivery. The 2004 contract was celebrated in some quarters as having pulled the wool over the eyes of Department of Health negotiators by incentivising performance targets that were already being achieved by many practices. Thus, a contract intended to improve patient care was considered by many as a pay rise. This was not a ruse that could be repeated. In the next decade, GP funding flat-lined, while funding for specialist services in primary and secondary care both increased by 50%.5 With this pyrrhic negotiating victory, general practice shot itself in the foot.

Even with political will the prospect of addressing the inverse care law via the GP Contract is not bright. Information on unmet need or, more accurately, poorly coordinated care, is obvious to frontline practitioners but absent from the routine data that statistical formulae require. Redistribution within a common budget when everyone is under-resourced and under pressure is also unlikely. As Adam Smith indicated in his works, perceived losses are felt, and therefore resisted, more keenly than perceived gains.6

These are old arguments, weakly competing for attention amid the many urgent challenges facing the NHS and its practitioners. Corporate predators are circling and waiting for opportunities to syphon off profitable parts of health care. General management has hypertrophied and, in the manner of hypertrophied organs, is working harder and harder to achieve less and less. Specialisms in both primary and secondary care have proliferated, providing high-quality care for patients who need them but fragmenting the care of patients with multimorbidity and excluding patients who do not ‘fit’. Under-investment in generalist care in the community has weakened its ability to prevent, postpone, or delay disease complications and puts increased pressure on emergency departments. Trumping all these issues, there is a manpower crisis in general practice. If sufficient numbers of GPs cannot be recruited and retained, the whole service is at risk. Addressing the inverse care law in the future depends crucially not only on funding, but on a motivated workforce. But, motivated to do what?

The NHS has been insufficiently imagined as an agent of social justice. Health care in deprived areas is a holding operation, avoiding the disgrace of open gaps but failing to achieve what could be achieved. As the title of Bevan’s book In Place of Fear made clear, removal of financial barriers to health care was a huge step forward, but it only provided access, and not necessarily needs-based care.7 A continuing issue is whether the NHS is primarily for those who have achieved longevity or also an instrument for reducing differences in longevity between social groups — the starkest form of social exclusion.

THREE BUILDING PROGRAMMES

The exceptional potential of general practice was originally described in terms of what could be achieved in individual consultations.8 Initial engagement is essential, but only the starting point for three building programmes, none of which involve bricks and mortar. All require purpose, patience, and persistence in building new relationships.

First, using serial encounters, the challenge is to build a practice compendium of strong patient narratives, especially for patients with complex multimorbidity, based on what is important to them. Self-help and self-management are destinations, not starting points, for many, and are only achievable after time is taken to build knowledge, confidence, and agency.

Second, the intrinsic strengths of general practice, including an unconditional approach, continuity, coverage, long-term relationships, and trust, make it the natural hub of local health systems, but effective hubs need to build strong relationships and quick, familiar referral links to community resources and other local services. As an example, financial advisers embedded in general practices, and not simply ‘co-located’, resulted in many patients claiming welfare benefits to which they were entitled, with an average annual financial benefit of £8253 per claimant.9

Third, local health systems need to be part of a whole system, connected by a collegiate culture of shared experience, evidence, and learning. General practices should be accountable not only upwards to their source of funding and downwards to the populations they serve, but also horizontally to each other, supporting weak links in the chain.

Such building programmes can and must be supported from the centre, but their detail and implementation can only be imagined and led at local level. GPs can embrace or block such change. They also need to stay long enough in one place to make a difference, drawing compound interest from social capital.

As multimorbidity accrues, such building programmes are needed everywhere, but if the NHS is not at its best where it is needed most, inequalities in health will widen. There are three cogent reasons for beginning at the bottom of the slope. For health service managers, stronger care in the community can prevent, postpone, or lessen personal crises requiring emergency A&E attendance or hospital admission. The recent evaluation of Sure Start by the Institute of Fiscal Studies showed this for vulnerable families.10 General practice needs similar evidence.

For an increasing group of Deep End practitioners, including newcomers and old hands, this is what they already aspire to do, it is the direction they want their careers to take and it is the collegiate culture they want to be part of.11,12

But third, and most important, it is what publicly funded doctors can contribute to society. Julian Tudor Hart maintained and demonstrated throughout his career that the NHS could and should be a model for wider society, as a gift economy based on giving as well as getting.

Inclusive health care, excluding exclusions and building relationships, is a civilising force in an increasingly dangerous, divided, and uncertain world.

Notes

Provenance

Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The author coordinated the Scottish Deep End Project from 2009–2016 and is editor of the book The Exceptional Potential of General Practice.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2019

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Levene LS,
    2. Baker R,
    3. Bankart J,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Br J Gen Pract, Practice funding and socioeconomic deprivation in English general practices: a longitudinal study 2013–2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X697397.
  2. 2.↵
    1. McLean G,
    2. Guthrie B,
    3. Mercer SW,
    4. Watt GC
    (2015) Br J Gen Pract, General practice funding underpins the persistence of the inverse care law: cross-sectional study in Scotland. DOI: https://10.3399/bjgp15X687829.
  3. 3.↵
    1. Levene LS,
    2. Baker R,
    3. Bankart J,
    4. et al.
    (2019) Br J Gen Pract, Socioeconomic deprivation scores as predictors of variations in NHS practice payments: a longitudinal study of English general practices 2013–2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X704549.
  4. 4.↵
    1. Watt G
    (2018) Br J Gen Pract, The inverse care law revisited: a continuing blot on the record of the National Health Service. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X699893.
  5. 5.↵
    1. Irvine H,
    2. Gomez J
    (2015) Using routinely collected data to figure out where the NHS is going wrong, https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_443697_en.pdf (accessed 10 Jul 2019).
  6. 6.↵
    1. Ashraf N,
    2. Camerer CF,
    3. Loewenstein G
    (2005) Adam Smith, Behavioural Economist. J Econ Perspect 19(3):131–145.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.↵
    1. Bevan A
    (1952) In Place of Fear (Heinemann, London).
  8. 8.↵
    1. Stott NC,
    2. Davis RH
    (1979) The exceptional potential in each primary care consultation. J R Coll Gen Pract 29(201):201–205.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Egan J,
    2. Robison O
    (2019) Integrating money advice workers into primary care settings: an evaluation (Glasgow Centre for Population Health, Glasgow) https://www.gcph.co.uk/assets/0000/7293/Advice_workers_in_deep_end_GP_primary_care_setting.pdf (accessed 10 Jul 2019).
  10. 10.↵
    1. Cattan S,
    2. Conti G,
    3. Farquharson C,
    4. Ginja R
    (2019) The health effects of Sure Start. Executive summary. (Institute of Fiscal Studies, London) https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/The-health-effects-of-Sure-Start-Exec-Summary.pdf (accessed 10 Jul 2019).
  11. 11.↵
    1. General Practitioners At The Deep End.
    (2019) International Bulletin No. 1. https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_650092_en.pdf (accessed 10 Jul 2019).
  12. 12.↵
    1. Watt GCM
    , ed (2019) The Exceptional Potential of General Practice: Making a Difference in Primary Care (CRC Press, Abingdon, Oxford).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 69 (685)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 69, Issue 685
August 2019
  • 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.
Building equity in the NHS: the role of general practice
(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
Building equity in the NHS: the role of general practice
Graham Watt
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (685): 374-375. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X704693

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
Building equity in the NHS: the role of general practice
Graham Watt
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (685): 374-375. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X704693
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
    • THE GP CONTRACT AS A BLIND ALLEY
    • THREE BUILDING PROGRAMMES
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Remote by default general practice: must we, should we, dare we?
  • Learning disability registers: known unknowns and unknown unknowns
  • Charging for NHS care and its impact on maternal health
Show more Editorials

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