Skip to main content

Main menu

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

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

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

COVID-19 and the death of the family doctor

Stephen Gillam
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (697): 402-403. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp20X712025
Stephen Gillam
Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge. Email:
Roles: Visiting Senior Fellow and GP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: Sjg67@medschl.cam.ac.uk
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

You know the old trope: ‘General practice would be great if it wasn’t for the patients.’ The last three months have been among the strangest of my career. The car park and waiting room eerily empty, all day on the phone. ‘This will change the way we practice for ever’, my colleague breezily opined. ‘We’ve always known we don’t really need to see people for most of what we do.’ Really? Among its many victims, will COVID-19 kill off another weakened creature: the ‘family doctor’?

The term ‘general practitioner’ was first recorded in 1809 when surgeon-apothecaries were plying private trade from their own shops. The Apothecaries Act of 1815 initiated the first common licensing arrangements, and thereby the professionalisation of this branch of medicine.1 GPs struggled initially — ever complaining about the expense of education, the difficulties of establishing a practice, poverty, competition from ‘irregulars’ — but the profession had become firmly established by around 1850. Generalists in the likeness of Tertius Lydgate came to dominate the practice of medicine.2 Their rise led to a decline in demand for physicians other than as more genteel attendants of the aristocracy. Indeed, the provincial GP enjoyed a virtual monopoly of the local health economy.3

EMERGENCE OF THE FAMILY DOCTOR

The notion of the family doctor emerged over the second half of the 19th century. The Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons were reactionary and continued to resist the establishment of a college for GPs. Novelists reflected attitudes of the time. The fictional stereotype of the early family doctor was often poor, shabby, and old-fashioned, but always accessible. He enjoyed the confidence of his patients. A contemporary users’ guide intoned: ‘Let not your doctor be too useful … and avoid the man whose dress and demeanour indicate puppyism … Be not averse to him if he is slovenly in apparel’.4

The ideal of family doctor was thus powerful in shaping public and professional perceptions of 19th century medical practice. In Loved at Last, the GP Mr Gregory ‘bore with noble courage and patient bearing … broken rest … long rides … exercising a skill and knowledge acquired by years of study and acute observation’. 5 He was expected to sit patiently at the bedside through long hours and was able to deal with any emergency at any time of day or night. One practitioner wrote in 1831 of having ‘often to soothe and satisfy where no disease exists’ and to advise ‘on phenomena little subject to medical treatment’. 6

The role of the family doctor was increasingly valued for combining a broad clinical approach and a pastoral role but, at its core, was continuity of care. The new GPs’ greatest asset was their intimate knowledge of ‘the hereditary constitutions, habits and temperaments of their patients’.7 The ideal of family doctor was thus powerful in shaping public and professional perceptions of 19th century medical practice.8

The National Health Insurance Act of 1911 further reinforced these perceptions. It provided workers with free health care. Dependents were covered by friendly societies and sick clubs but women and children were as yet poorly served. In 1948, the National Health Service extended health care to families. The terms ‘family doctor’ and ‘general practitioner’ continued to be conflated.

By the early 1960s, general practice was in crisis as the economic realities of the NHS failed to match professional aspirations. In 1961 a Central Health Services subcommittee was set up under Annis Gillie to advise on the ‘future field of work of the family doctor’.9 Its recommendations subsequently underpinned the Family Doctor Charter, which was translated into a new contract in 1966.10 This introduced major changes to remuneration that were to have lasting effects on practice organisation and structure.

RETREAT OF THE FAMILY DOCTOR

Ironically, the decline of the family doctor could be seen as dating back to that same settlement. As practice teams and the range of services they provided thereafter expanded, the legitimacy of family practice began to be questioned. The main problem with the concept lies in establishing what it means. Does it embrace nuclear families, more extended families, or simply those living at the same address? Recent decades have seen a decline in marriage rates and of the two-parent family as a societal norm. The Royal College of General Practitioners included caring for families in its definition of the GP’s job11 — but who exactly is the patient?

Countries such as Australia and Holland with models of primary care similar to Britain’s have GPs. The US and Canada boast ‘family physicians.’ Yet even the most probing north American analyses have struggled to define the meaning of ‘family medicine’.12

Was it nothing more than a marketing exercise designed to appeal to the conservative intuitions of middle America where family values are axiomatically good?13

At its simplest, the concept is based on a theoretical model that understands the patient’s health in the context of their family relationships. In the UK, this accords closely with the psychoanalytic teaching of Michael Balint for whom such relationships were the most important cause of psychic conflict manifesting as illness.14 One reason for the declining interest in family medicine in this country may be that Balint filled that ecological niche.13 Critics drew attention to the inherent conflicts of interest and confidentiality between different members of the family and household. Marinker regarded the concept as ‘inimical’ to personal care.15 Surveys suggested that enthusiasm for family care was inversely related to the number of partners in the practice and single-handed practice was in decline.16

Despite such ambiguities, there has always been emotional and epidemiological support for the sobriquet ‘family doctor’. Three quarters of the population, after all, live with relatives who share the same doctor. They may confuse the concept with a ‘personal doctor’ but it has retained significance for many patients too.

Doctors are largely unmoved by theoretical models of the family as patient. Rather they remain attached to the idea of a family doctor for the connotations of intimacy and extended biography it suggests. It is hard to ignore the influence of family on presentation, diagnosis, and management.

In his classical descriptive studies, Huygen meticulously documented the sickness behaviour of families over generations.17 He demonstrated how life events are played out in fluctuating consultation rates and, in particular, that new generations learn how to be ill from their parents. Frequent consulters breed frequent consulters. Such insights can be invaluable in practice.

Nonetheless, other changes have continued to erode family practice. The 2004 GP contract ended 24 hour (‘womb to tomb’) responsibility for patient care and in so doing dealt another blow to personal continuity of care. The 1997 NHS (Primary Care) Act introduced salaried practice thus furthering its decline. Rates of home visiting, the source of so much intimate knowledge, fell steadily.

The GP’s gaze has continued to shift between competing domains of practice: the scientific and biomedical, the psychosocial and hermeneutic, the anticipatory and preventive.

A strange alliance of evidence-based medicine and market economics has re-defined the quality of general practice in terms of purely quantifiable targets. The associated administrative demands of pay-for-performance, commissioning, and regulation have crowded out the space for the style of practice on which the popularity of the discipline was founded.

Today’s management of chronic disease is incomparably more sophisticated. It is delivered by large teams of well-trained doctors, nurse practitioners, healthcare assistants, and paramedics. Skilled nurses have taken over the provision of chronic disease management and GPs are becoming de-skilled. Continuity of personal care as once understood is the price paid. Personalised medicine is being redefined by its very antithesis: the linkage of individuals’ polygenic risk scores to their datomes, that mass of real time information collected by tech companies.18

YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’VE GOT TILL IT’S GONE

The principal change to practice being driven by the COVID-19 epidemic is a shift to video consultation. The limited evidence base suggests that the acceptability and effectiveness of video-consultations compares with that of traditional clinic-based care,19 but few studies have been carried out in general practice.

How well does virtual health care serve the needs of those whose physical symptoms mask underlying anxiety and depression? To what extent does its safety depend on antecedent face-to-face encounters? COVID-19 may yield unexpected benefits. The general public may emerge with greater understanding of healthcare’s limitations. They may have a greater sense of responsibility for their own health. They may appreciate the value of exercise and community. They may not.

In recent weeks the NHS has shown remarkable ingenuity in adapting to virtual health care. We have been reminded that all health systems form part of the fabric of civic life. They reinforce societal norms through the personal experiences of users. Direct experience is what will shape future support for general practice too. It is easy to glamorise the mythical and pleas like this can seem sentimental. The concept of the family doctor has helped to create a false dichotomy: between medical science and technology on one hand and caring and compassion on the other. Yet those heralding the transformation of general practice should beware of what they wish for. The family doctor was in poor health but will be mourned, nevertheless.

Footnotes

  • This article was first posted on BJGP Life on 27 May 2020: bjgplife.com/death-family-doctor

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2020

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Gillam S
    George Man Burrows and the anguished birth of general practiceBMJ2017359j5713
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Elliot G
    MiddlemarchEdinburgh and LondonWilliam Blackwood and Sons1871
  3. 3.↵
    1. Loudon I
    Medical Care and the General Practitioner, 1750–1850OxfordClarendon Press1986
  4. 4.↵
    Hints on choosing a doctorThe Penny Magazine18321309310
    OpenUrl
  5. 5.↵
    1. Lemon M
    Loved at Last3LondonBradbury & Evans1864
  6. 6.↵
    1. Cooke W
    Separation Without Dissension: Observations Respectfully Addressed to General Practitioners on the Best Means of Maintaining their Privileges and RespectabilityLondonLongman Rees and Co1831
  7. 7.↵
    1. Thomson A
    Lecture at London UniversityLancet1836–1837i77
  8. 8.↵
    1. Loudon I
    The concept of the family doctorBulletin Hist Med1984583347362
    OpenUrl
  9. 9.↵
    1. Central Health Services Council, Standing Medical Advisory Committee
    The Field of Work of the Family Doctor: Report of the Subcommittee The Gillie reportLondonHMSO1963
  10. 10.↵
    The Family Doctor CharterLondonHMSO1966
  11. 11.↵
    1. Christie RJ,
    2. Hoffmaster CB
    Ethical Issues in Family MedicineNew York, NYOxford University Press1986
  12. 12.↵
    1. Royal College of General Practitioners
    The Future General Practitioner: Learning and TeachingLondonRCGP1972
  13. 13.↵
    1. Toon P
    What is Good General Practice?Occasional Paper 65LondonRoyal College of General Practitioners1994
  14. 14.↵
    1. Balint M
    The Doctor, His Patient and the IllnessLondonPitman1957
  15. 15.↵
    1. Marinker M
    The family in medicineProc Royal Soc Med1976692115124
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    1. Cartwright A,
    2. Anderson R
    General Practice Re-visited: A Second Study of Patients and their DoctorsLondonPitman1981
  17. 17.↵
    1. Huygen F
    Family Medicine: The Medical Life History of FamiliesNijmegen, the NetherlandsDekker & Van de Vegt1978
  18. 18.↵
    Medicine is getting to grips with individualityThe Economist2020Mar12https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2020/03/12/medicine-is-getting-to-grips-with-individuality (accessed 8 Jul 2020).
  19. 19.↵
    1. Greenhalgh T,
    2. Wherton J,
    3. Shaw S,
    4. Morrison C
    Video consultations for covid-19BMJ2020368m998
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 70 (697)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 70, Issue 697
August 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
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.
COVID-19 and the death of the family doctor
(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
COVID-19 and the death of the family doctor
Stephen Gillam
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (697): 402-403. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp20X712025

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
COVID-19 and the death of the family doctor
Stephen Gillam
British Journal of General Practice 2020; 70 (697): 402-403. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp20X712025
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
    • EMERGENCE OF THE FAMILY DOCTOR
    • RETREAT OF THE FAMILY DOCTOR
    • YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU’VE GOT TILL IT’S GONE
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Yonder: HFpEF, amputees, professional identity formation, and leadership training
  • Manufacturing doctors is one thing; sustaining working communities is quite another
  • Junior doctors leaving the NHS: what would it mean for general practice?
Show more Life & Times

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

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

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 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

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