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
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

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

General practice after COVID-19: an introduction to our special series

David Misselbrook
British Journal of General Practice 2021; 71 (707): 265. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp21X715973
David Misselbrook
Email:
Roles: Deputy Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: DMisselbrook@rcsi-mub.com
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

COVID-19 has brought about unprecedented change within general practice, especially the large-scale switch from face-to-face consultation to teleconsultation. This was a necessary response to the very real potential for surgery sessions to become ‘super-spreader events’. This would have not only increased the spread of COVID-19, but also reduced the ability of primary care to respond to the pandemic as healthcare staff inevitably became ill.

Most of us assumed that the changes would be short term. But we gradually realised that things would not go back as they were. When the pandemic eventually subsided it would leave behind some sort of ‘new normal’.

Three months ago BJGP Life called for articles on the theme of general practice after COVID-19. What will our new normal look like? What could it look like, and how could we build it? In Life and Times this month we showcase some of these articles, published in BJGP Life in April.

So what conclusions can we draw from these contributions? Perhaps it will come as no surprise that these articles provide little consensus as to how we should go forward.

THE TWO POLES

One theme is the need for a realistic review of the age-old ‘good/fast/cheap’ dilemma. (You can have any two, just not all three.) Just how much health care, of what quality, can be provided for the resources on offer? A call for realism and honesty in political debate — well, there’s a new idea!

A simplistic analysis of the other articles (representative also of those that we have not been able to include) shows there is a spectrum of opinion about the direction of travel.

Some articles focus on the potential for modern technology to give alternatives to face-to-face consulting. For simple transactions patients may find remote consulting more accessible and convenient. And perhaps remote patient monitoring, or telemedicine, may at last live up to its potential. But it is perhaps ironic that most remote consultation has been done not as video consultation, where at least both can see the other’s face, but as telephone consulting1 — available for over a century.

Figure

David Misselbrook

The other pole of this spectrum highlights what we are losing in the retreat from face-to-face consultation. What about continuity of care? What about a personal doctor–patient relationship? What about trust? What about the doctor as a witness to, and interpreter of, the patient’s lived experience of illness?

What these two poles illustrate is an inherent tension between the two aspects of medicine itself. Is the practice of medicine primarily transactional or relational?

A transactional model of medicine sees medicine as primarily biomedical in its focus. Patients need defined medical inputs. These can often be determined by algorithms and therefore may often be done more cheaply by clinicians other than doctors. The clinicians themselves are interchangeable — it is the defined intervention that matters.

A relational model of medicine sees biomedical interventions as occurring within complex, highly personal contexts requiring personalised judgements that go beyond biomedical algorithms. These will therefore depend on a deeper understanding of the patient, within their family and social setting, and over a longer timeframe. It is hard to see how such judgements could be made by a doctor, or accepted by a patient, without an established relationship of trust.

A transactional model of medicine may indeed be suitable if I am usually healthy with a strong internal locus of control and just need a sicknote, a repeat of a routine medication, or a limited one-off procedure or an emergency. The transactional model is beloved of politicians and managers — it makes the doctor an interchangeable cog who can often be sidelined altogether.

A relational model of medicine seems more suited to dealing with chronic disease and multimorbidity, especially in vulnerable populations who may have less of an internal locus of control. The relational model is hard for politicians and managers to understand or even see, and certainly does not fit in well with managerial models.

Like most things in life, we need to embrace a well-chosen mid-point between two extremes. Good medicine encompasses the transactional (we do things to people that are usually predictable), but this should be nested within an ongoing relationship of understanding and trust.

We need to build the future together, and reflecting on this month’s Life & Times is a good place to start. COVID-19 has changed so much. But some things in medicine should not change.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2021

REFERENCE

  1. 1.↵
    1. Murphy M,
    2. Scott LJ,
    3. Salisbury C,
    4. et al.
    (2021) Implementation of remote consulting in UK primary care following the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods longitudinal study. Br J Gen Pract, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2020.0948.
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 71 (707)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 71, Issue 707
June 2021
  • 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.
General practice after COVID-19: an introduction to our special series
(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
General practice after COVID-19: an introduction to our special series
David Misselbrook
British Journal of General Practice 2021; 71 (707): 265. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp21X715973

Citation Manager Formats

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

Share
General practice after COVID-19: an introduction to our special series
David Misselbrook
British Journal of General Practice 2021; 71 (707): 265. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp21X715973
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
    • THE TWO POLES
    • REFERENCE
  • Figures & Data
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Television: This Is Going to Hurt
  • Southgate’s sign
  • Where is the sales pitch for NHS primary care careers?
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
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

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