Time for a rethink on GP numbers | Zara Aziz

General practice is in a state of crisis. Despite the promises and the optimism of proposed plans to reform primary care over the next five years, the reality on the ground offers little comfort.

The GP Forward View (GPFV) published 12 months ago promised us 5,000 more GPs by 2020. So one year on, where do things stand? Yes, there was a rise in GP trainee recruitment in 2016 (167 more trainees than in 2015), but overall, GP numbers are falling. According to the latest NHS England figures, 92 practices closed in 2016, up 114% on GP surgery closures in 2014. While 34 merged with other practices, the remainder shut completely. And the number of GPs fell by more than 400 between October and December 2016 alone.

While the lure of jobs abroad, early retirement and locum jobs explain some of these figures, there is a growing crisis in retention. In the south–west, a survey of more than 2,000 GPs, published today, has found that around two in five GPs intend to quit within the next five years. More than half report low morale.

Poor retention is also both a cause and effect of staff shortages and escalating workload (with 12- to 14-hour days). A recent British Medical Association poll showed that 84% of GPs find their workload unmanageable. Reduced take-home pay, particularly for partners as practice costs increase, is also a factor, as is red tape. There is more paperwork than ever before, as work is shifting from secondary to primary care. Resources are stretched and rationing more widespread. I see a greater influx of patients, a faster turnaround from earlier hospital discharges, more limited access to outpatient referrals and longer waits for elective surgery. A significant amount of work also goes into preparing for Care Quality Commission visits, with the bulk of the responsibility on the shoulders of practice managers and partners. And where the government has given primary care more funding on the one hand, it has taken away with the other by cutting investment in other areas or linking it to extending access or seven-day services.

The effect on patients of this shortage of GPs is stark. The scale of practice closures meant that 265,000 patients had to register with a new surgery last year and now often face travelling further to see a doctor. Yet the government is still keen to develop super-practices of 30-50,000 patients, despite GPs and patients not being in favour of these models that reduce continuity of care and autonomy. It feels like we are being pushed towards privatisation and a salaried GP model, stripped of the sense of ownership for our practices and responsibility that we feel for our staff, premises and patients.

As one of the antidotes to the retention crisis, the practitioner health programme (PHP), commissioned by the government for GPs, was rolled out earlier this year and in only four weeks it saw the number of GPs it was commissioned to see for the whole year. The PHP has cited stress, burnout and post-traumatic stress disorder as some of the commonest problems faced by GPs, often from “practice meltdown”.

One year on from the GPFV we have seen little change when it comes to improving the working lives of GPs, who may be independent contractors but nevertheless work for the NHS and provide a crucial and cost-effective service.

Retention schemes to keep over-55s in work by allowing them to work more flexibly, or giving “golden hellos” to trainees to work in under-doctored areas are all a drop in the ocean. The PHP is certainly welcome and well overdue. But it would also make sense to increase core funding of general practice to reflect the explosion in workload. This will improve retention and recruitment. As things stand, it seems a herculean task for the government to rescue something it has little understanding of or empathy with.​ It may be time to go back to the drawing board.

Time for a rethink on GP numbers | Zara Aziz

Why is there so little social diversity in medicine? | Zara Aziz

Medicine in the UK has traditionally been deemed an elite profession that excludes those from low socioeconomic groups. A mere 7% of students are privately educated, but 26% of medical students went to fee-paying schools.

However, when you look closely at the figures, many students leave school at 16, and 18% of 16- to 18-year-olds are in fact privately educated; the proportion is even higher for those studying science subjects. Suddenly, the figure of 26% of privately educated medical students seems to reflect numbers studying sciences at school. It is not surprising that the majority of doctors come from more affluent backgrounds.

I do not come from a privileged background. But I had opportunity. I did not attend a state school but was awarded a bursary to study at a private school. My husband, a hospital consultant, was state educated. His father was a bus driver and arrived in the UK as an immigrant in the 1960s. In many places in the world, perhaps neither of us would have been given such opportunities.

It is opportunity that social mobility organisations and medical schools themselves are asked to create, in order to remove this disparity in entrants. Universally, access to medical school is limited due to a lack of places; this generates stiff competition and entry criteria tighten every year. Historically, selection for medical school has consisted of exam performance and interview scores (most medical schools will interview their applicants). In recent years, we have seen the introduction of a national UKCAT aptitude test, which all candidates complete. Universities are also moving away from a single interview, which can be an arduous experience for candidates.

The new multiple mini interviews (MMIs) consist of several short stations, which test candidates on standard questions (Why do you want to study medicine?), ability to complete a practical task, communicate effectively or explore an ethical dilemma. These seem to be a fairer way of judging students, who may otherwise perform badly through nerves or even assessor bias.

It has been surmised that MMIs favour state students, but in my experience as an assessor this is not always the case. MMIs favour those who are confident, communicate well and display empathy: all the qualities we would expect from a good doctor. Often students from failing schools do not perform well, if they have had neither coaching nor exposure to similar situations. And modifying the selection process further is unlikely to have major impact as few students from less affluent backgrounds apply in the first place.

Many of the widening access to medical education programmes promote initiatives, such as arranging mentoring or work experience with doctors, and by introducing summer medical schools for sixth formers. This is certainly showing some encouraging results but it does not get to the root of the problem, and you only have to look at school dropout rates to see why: one in five students will leave school after GCSEs; of those who continue in education, few will study core academic or science subjects.

State-educated medical students are usually from good comprehensive or grammar schools, which operate within narrow geographical boundaries. These are often in affluent areas, with little chance of access to those from broken families or challenging neighbourhoods. Many of the independent schools’ bursaries, such as the one I was educated on, have since been abolished.

University tuition fees have also changed the demographics of students. Medicine is usually a five or six-year course, or even longer if students undertake foundation or catch-up medical courses. Students from low-income families are discouraged at the prospect of spiralling debt, which can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds. The government’s controversial plans to change the junior doctor contract and to consider tying newly-qualified doctors to the NHS for four years is unlikely to increase diversity in applicants.

A mix of poor schooling, lack of aspirations and financial deprivation limits access to the medical profession. It is simplistic and even detrimental to try to tackle it through university or social mobility organisations alone. Our aim should always be to have competent and empathetic doctors from different social and cultural backgrounds who reflect our society.

One way of improving diversity is by having doctors from EU and non-EU countries as well, but we still need to increase access to the professions within the UK to young people from all social backgrounds.

The solution to this societal and educational problem is complex. It requires a wider commitment from us and the government towards our children, their education and wellbeing.

If you would like to write a blogpost for Views from the NHS frontline, read our guidelines and get in touch by emailing sarah.johnson@theguardian.com.

Join the Healthcare Professionals Network to read more pieces like this. And follow us on Twitter (@GdnHealthcare) to keep up with the latest healthcare news and views.

Why is there so little social diversity in medicine? | Zara Aziz

The NHS no longer has the resources to care for our sick population | Zara Aziz

Hospitals and GP surgeries have always had a symbiotic relationship and the hospital crisis this winter has had a significant impact on the way that we are able to offer care to patients in the community.

In our practice, demand has not changed significantly as far as minor illnesses are concerned. We had an expectation of winter pressures and planned for more urgent appointments across all days of the week (including a Saturday shared rota with a hub of other local practices). But what we have seen is a significant rise in the complexity of cases – even when compared with a year ago.

Patients often turn up for their 10- to 15-minute appointment with several complex problems or secondary care related queries. Some practices advise patients to discuss one problem per appointment, and this has come under criticism from the Patients Association for potentially preventing people from raising health worries.

With many practices struggling to recruit GPs and nurses, and running on skeleton staff in the face of escalating demand and threats of closure, it is unhelpful for patients to see us repeatedly for a few minor complaints when a single appointment could sort all the issues.

At our surgery, we offer 15-minute appointments for routine problems that are booked in advance and 10 minutes for the on the day urgent problems. It is unusual to finish consultations within these times. Most days I will admit one or two sick patients into hospital – sometimes the decision to admit is clear cut, on other occasions it’s more complicated. Ultimately, it comes down to the patient’s best interests and their wishes, and the hospital being able to offer assessments and treatments that we cannot in the community. But increasingly, I am having to factor in long waits at hospital and the scarcity of beds in my decision. This week it took over 24 hours for my patient to be admitted from a care home to the hospital. Another patient, Dorothy, is in her 80s and usually well and independent in her warden-controlled flat. Then she became acutely confused, unable to walk and began hallucinating – there was also the possibility of a head injury from a fall but we were not able to corroborate this. I discussed her case with a hospital specialist and an assessment and a CT scan of the head was recommended via A&E. I called for an urgent ambulance. They too were inundated with emergencies and unable to hand over patients promptly through bottlenecks in A&E, medical admissions units and the wards. It was nine hours before Dorothy arrived in A&E. Her head scan was normal but it was another 12 hours before she was moved to a surgical ward as an “outlying” medical patient. Both she and her daughter who accompanied her were exhausted and upset.

Faced with worryingly high occupancy rates, many hospitals are admitting patients to non-specialty wards. In our area there are more than 100 patients on non-medical wards. This poses its own risks, with overstretched staff caring for more patients than safe thresholds allow.

Dorothy was discharged three days later, still confused, frail and unable to manage in her own home. There were no step-down or intermediate care beds to speak of and her daughter struggled to care for her. I had few options – she needed more help but I did not feel that she would be any better in hospital given current pressures. But a social care assessment would take days to arrange. I asked the rapid response team to support her until things improved. They too were working well above their capacity but agreed to take her on their caseload for a few days.

There are daily pressures to discharge patients like Dorothy to make way for new admissions. It is not surprising that with an ageing, frail population there are often no quick fixes. I am now seeing more failed discharges, with patients ending up in a crisis at home and unable to cope. Some hospital discharge summaries have clear instructions to offer supportive or end-of-life care, and not to readmit. For some patients this is appropriate – for others less soso as there are no new avenues being offered as an alternatives to admission. With overstretched GPs and community nursing as well as social care in disarray, the government is abandoning the most vulnerable in our society.

Last week, Theresa May blamed GPs for this “non-crisis”, claiming that NHS funding has been more than adequate – an assertion vehemently disputed by the head of NHS England, Sir Simon Stevens.

Despite the government’s misinformation on so many fronts, it is clear that today’s NHS is no longer resourced properly to adequately care for our sick population. And there is also another crisis unfolding – one of poor morale and retention of NHS staff, who are forced by chronic underfunding to either work in an environment where patient care is compromised within primary and secondary care, or to leave the profession. But it would seem that like the other “human crisis”, the government is in denial about this. too.

The NHS no longer has the resources to care for our sick population | Zara Aziz

Seven-day working for GPs costs more and doesn’t get results | Zara Aziz

My practice started offering Saturday morning GP appointments as well as weekday slots from 8am. Previously, our surgery opened Monday to Friday from 8.30am to 6.30pm with some evening appointments until 7.30pm. The Saturday slots are now offered as part of a group of local practices (on a rota basis) to all patients across the practices for routine pre-bookable appointments. There are many such pilots across the country – which started in 2013 as part of the then prime minister’s £50m challenge fund. Some, such as those in Greater Manchester, offered Saturday and Sunday urgent and routine appointments in addition to extended weekday access. Others, like ours, offer additional weekday and Saturday morning access for routine appointments only. The government has committed to another year of extended access despite dubious benefits of the first wave.

The health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has cited lack of GP services as one of the reasons for A&E and acute admission pressures in hospitals. Indeed, studies have shown that seven-day GP access reduces attendances at A&E for minor illnesses but has little impact on emergency hospital attendances for serious medical conditions.

A recent study from Greater Manchester showed that providing extended seven-day GP access to patients across 56 practices reduced A&E attendances for minor ailments by 26% (in comparison to 469 practices that provided routine access). This equated to savings of £767,867 through reduced A&E visits – however, this extended GP access scheme cost around £3.1m, which included evening appointments until 9pm on weekdays and both Saturdays and Sundays (across a range of times). But hospital visits for minor ailments form only a proportion of total A&E visits – this study showed that extending GP access led to only a small reduction of 3.1% in total A&E visits. So overall, the scheme cost three times more than it made in savings.

There has also been further evaluation of the impact of seven-day access on medical admissions of elderly patients at weekends. In central London seven-day GP cover cut weekend A&E visits by 18% and weekend hospital admissions fell by 9.9% (mainly in elderly patients). But there have been many more disappointing outcomes from the extended access schemes with many areas discontinuing the pilots early or cutting their hours.

In areas where extended opening hours are only offering routine appointments, like ours, cost-savings through reduced A&E attendances or emergency admissions is even more questionable since we are not seeing urgent or acute problems – it is the latter group of patients who are more likely to go to out-of-hours services or to A&E.  

Nevertheless, NHS England has used some of this early data to extend the seven-day GP access services. In 2015-16, it invested £100m. At a time when both primary and secondary care is seeing unprecedented budget cuts and rationing of “unnecessary” or even routine services, it makes little sense to waste money on weekend opening .

The cost per total extended hour is up to £280, with practices needing to cover premises’ costs and reception, nurse and GP hours. Staffing these hours has been especially problematic for some areas that do not have enough GPs. Within my own practice, there is little appetite to work more. Until a few years ago I used to work GP out-of-hours sessions until it became difficult to manage these with a young family. As a partner in the hub of practices, I am doing the Saturday morning sessions. The 12 slots are booked by a mix of people, some of whom could come during the week.

Expensive extended access is not likely to be sustainable, and my concern is where is this money likely to be diverted from? And should we not put it to the public to decide whether they would like seven-day provision or improved access within existing GP hours?

Evidence suggests that improved access within existing, standard hours leads to a more effective way of reducing patients’ use of out-of-hours services than extending opening times. But this requires more GPs and more rooms to put them in. and better signposting so patients can see nurses, pharmacies and health care assistants rather than only a GP. It makes no sense to run services on a shoestring during the week, offering limited appointments to patients – because you are spreading staff thinly across the week. We should be offering more daytime appointments. This requires a commitment from the government to help primary care tackle its workload and funding crises, rather than persisting with its obsession of seven-day working.

Seven-day working for GPs costs more and doesn’t get results | Zara Aziz

Jeremy Hunt"s plan to shame GPs with minimal cancer referrals is not the solution | Zara Aziz

A GP in consultation with a patient. Referral rates for cancer diagnosis will fluctuate in accordance to a variety of factors. Photograph: David Sillitoe for the Guardian

The well being secretary, Jeremy Hunt, desires to name and shame GP practices with lower cancer referral costs. The NHS Selections website will mark reduced-referral GP practices as “red”, or “green” if they refer far more. This is in response to significant variations in cancer diagnoses across England, which is becoming attributed to GPs not referring individuals early sufficient. According to figures from the Royal College of Basic Practitioners , three-quarters of individuals with cancer are referred right after one particular or two GP consultations. There is definitely room for improvement.

Several higher-danger symptoms are less difficult to refer, such as a persistent cough, a adjust in bowel routines or excess weight loss. It is the non-certain symptoms this kind of as tiredness that are typically the most demanding. Pancreatic cancer is a notoriously challenging diagnosis and can present with just malaise, reduction of appetite, new onset diabetes or back ache, all of which we see on a day-to-day basis in basic practice. Pancreatic cancer is the ninth most typical cancer in the Uk but the fifth most typical cause of cancer death.

GPs have clear tips on “two-week wait” referrals for all cancers, whereby any person who presents with specific high chance indicators or signs, known as “red flag”, ought to be referred straight away and seen in hospital within two weeks. The criteria for referral is really specific and does not consider into account a GP’s intuition or non-particular symptoms. In our practice we audit our two-week wait referrals, to guarantee first of all that the patient has been witnessed by a specialist and hasn’t been misplaced in the method and secondly, to see if a cancer diagnosis was produced. The vast bulk of our referrals are, reassuringly, not diagnosed with cancer.

Demographics also perform a large element when it comes to looking at cancer diagnosis and mortality costs. I educated as a GP in an affluent semi-rural practice and often noticed the anxious nicely. The appointments were longer, much less pressured and a lot of sufferers attended for an “MOT”. It was then that I saw my 1st malignant melanoma when a “well” patient came to have all their moles looked at. It was a quite early presentation and they made a full recovery with no spread or recurrence of the disease.

I now function in a massive urban practice with varied health beliefs. There is more deprivation and healthcare complexity and a lot of sufferers, specifically guys, will present right after weeks or months of worrying signs and symptoms. For some of our sufferers, their proximity to hospitals or cultural beliefs indicate that they will bypass GPs altogether and attend A&ampE departments for initial presentation of signs and symptoms.

Most GPs do not see plenty of new cancer diagnoses each year, however most of us will make one or two cancer referrals a day. Nationally, only 10% of two-week referrals turn out to be cancer, which is comparable to individuals referred from our practice. But we do see lots of coughs, colds, malaise, aches and pains. The danger with this “kneejerk” name and shame policy would be that we would see a sharp rise in anyone with a cough or cold getting referred. As a end result, this will rapidly saturate the capacity of cancer clinics and delay investigations. The last point that we would want is the two-week wait to improve to a four-week wait or even longer.

Statistics for every practice are presently offered on the internet for GPs and the public to appear at. GP practices are conscious if they are substantial or reduced referrers it would seem that the new proposals would include absolutely nothing but be tantamount to “naming and shaming” medical professionals. Any analysis of cancer referral prices need to seem at the patient demographics of a practice, its cancer prevalence and other parameters such as no matter whether it is an outlier in other respects. There will indeed be some GP practices that are a result in for concern, but this is normally currently apparent to commissioning groups and NHS England, and it would make much more sense to performance manage these locally rather than adopt a damaging culture of blame and dread.

Jeremy Hunt"s plan to shame GPs with minimal cancer referrals is not the solution | Zara Aziz

The NHS does not want any much more pointless alter | Zara Aziz

‘The providers I locate helpful for patients such as on-web site district nursing are often the 1st to go.’ Photograph: Alamy

12 months on 12 months, if not month on month we are faced with alter, and it usually feels like adjust for change’s sake. Just as I get accustomed to the most current health policy, it is scrapped in favour of a new idea. The solutions that I locate useful for individuals, this kind of as community clinics or on-website district nursing, are frequently the 1st to go. Streamlining and efficiency are the buzzwords we hear, but they equate, invariably, to price cutting and dropping standards of care. Somewhere along the way, the patient expertise is all but lost. So fast is the pace of adjust that the only way to preserve abreast of all the reforms is to give up valuable clinical time, some thing that numerous of us have neither inclination nor capacity for.

In his speech to the NHS Confederation final week, the chief of NHS England, Sir Simon Stevens, emphasised the relevance of flexibility and the need to have regional models of care. His assistance for generalist local community clinics and hospitals is a welcome U -flip on prior policy. Previously, we have observed a move to encourage GP practices and smaller sized hospitals to restructure into greater organisations, while frowning on smaller sized, a lot more conventional family practices or cottage hospitals. But sufferers like personalised care. A single of my elderly patients was upset about how huge we had turn into (we have close to 15,000 individuals, although in 2010 it was about ten,000 patients). We have grown because there are couple of GP practices locally in an area of substantial patient population and demand.

Some adjust is inevitable and can be time-conserving and useful, to workers and sufferers alike. IT innovations suggest that I can often make on the web referrals to secondary care while the patient is even now in the area and give them paperwork for their referral. Yet other changes make no sense at all. When I first grew to become a GP, I referred individuals needing an admission to the on-call registrar for a particular specialty. It meant discussing the rationale for admitting a patient with a senior clinician, who would challenge you appropriately on your evaluation.

With a rise in demand and population, this model of referral was not sustainable, as the registrar would just be on the telephone all day taking referrals, and not treating sufferers. Bed managers, who are usually senior nurses, commenced taking referrals from GPs, and this worked to a degree. Much more just lately, this has transformed again so that every single referral regardless of specialty goes through a centralised telephone line, exactly where contact handlers operate via protocols (a bit like the NHS 111 service). Referrals have to be black and white. I am advised that my pregnant patient with pyelonephritis (kidney infection) does not “fit” the referral criteria, as she is pregnant and have to go to her maternity unit. When I contact the maternity unit, they come to feel it is a medical, not an obstetric, problem. Someplace in the middle, a heavily pregnant patient is left waiting.

NHS reforms have meant that hundreds of thousands have been spent on redundancy payouts to thousands of employees, yet 1 in 5 of people created redundant have been re-employed by the NHS in some kind. These administrative changes have been hugely expensive and demoralising to a workforce that currently has a recruitment crisis. We do not create sufficient doctors – it is as well costly to do so.

Anxiety and poor task satisfaction mean that several junior medical professionals emigrate or shy away from basic practice or emergency medication as specialties. Except if we cut the red tape, the exodus will carry on to the point of unsustainability.

Governments come and go, but each and every leaves its mark, with sweeping changes that are never gradual and frequently pointless. I know I am not alone in contemplating that the NHS need to be free of charge from political interference, from any party. Stevens says every permutation to restructure or radicalise has been considered of over the many years perhaps it is now time to listen to patients and staff and leave properly alone concerning the items that do function properly within the NHS.

The NHS does not want any much more pointless alter | Zara Aziz

Cutting hospital beds is a false economic climate | Zara Aziz

‘It is accurate that our elderly population is living longer, but with a better burden of illness.’ Photograph: Alamy

A latest examine by the Organisation for Financial Co-operation and Development found the United kingdom had the 2nd lowest variety of hospital beds per capita in Europe. There are two.95 beds in the United kingdom per one,000 men and women, and we are seeing more and much more beds currently being lower as smaller sized hospitals amalgamate into larger trusts. The only country that has fewer beds is Sweden, but it has different patient demographics and invests more in community overall health providers, this kind of as for ailment prevention and management of prolonged-phrase problems.

It is symptomatic of the challenge facing the NHS. Commissioning groups and hospital trusts are asked to supply ever much more: reduce A&ampE attendance, unplanned admissions and outpatient waiting occasions, whilst concurrently coping with a workforce crisis and catastrophic budget cuts.

My patient Arthur is a sprightly 81-12 months-outdated retired lecturer, who lives in warden-controlled accommodation. He nursed his wife by means of breast cancer until she died two years ago. He typically manages well: he has meals on wheels and one carer check out a day, to aid with any home tasks or buying. If he needs to see a medical professional, he typically walks the 50 yards it will take to get to our surgery.

He has never ever requested a property pay a visit to right up until the Tuesday that he requests a home call. When I see him, he is quite brief of breath and agitated. I suspect that he has pneumonia. His oxygen ranges are slipping, so I arrange an emergency ambulance to take him to the local hospital. I ring the single level of referral telephone line (this accepts all acute GP health care and surgical admissions). It generally faces higher demand on most days, but that day the hospital is on “red alert”: ambulances are backing up in A&ampE, unable to transfer their individuals. There are no empty healthcare beds to talk of, and hospital doctors are urgently making an attempt to discharge inpatients.

Soon after eight hrs of waiting in A&ampE, Arthur is transferred to an outlying orthopaedic ward. His chest x-ray showed pneumonia. He is handled on intravenous antibiotics for 24 hours and discharged with oral antibiotics on Thursday. When I see him the subsequent day, he admits that he feels tiny better, but is adamant he needs no even more intervention in hospital, come what could. He is philosophical about the care he has acquired. “Absolutely everyone functions really challenging and with resigned excellent humour, but the method is bursting at the seams,” he says.

It is true that our elderly population is living longer, but with a greater burden of illness. The standard position of a generalist GP is altering, as we see far more expert work spilling out of secondary care. GPs are expected to absorb this operate, but with no further sources. When I 1st joined my practice in 2010, we utilised to have an in-residence local community matron (to support assistance our sufferers with prolonged-phrase conditions). The funding for this was cut, and we now share a matron with three other practices (covering a total baseline population of all around forty,000 patients).

Our neighborhood trust has undergone major reconfiguration, with the imminent closure of one massive hospital and the transfer of all companies to the other web site. This will consequence in a net loss of 200 acute beds, which is probably to impact sufferers like Arthur, and stretch primary care in Bristol in an unprecedented way.

Several NHS trusts in England face comparable reconfigurations, and the government would do nicely to emphasis on what this means at patient degree, as there are no “quick fixes” when planning healthcare demands for sick individuals. Cuts in numbers of hospital beds can only work if these are replaced with equivalent community-based solutions, this kind of as more stage-down intermediate beds. Otherwise we will carry on to see an escalation of failed hospital discharges and “revolving-door” admissions.

Cutting hospital beds is a false economic climate | Zara Aziz

A yr on, problems remain in the NHS clinical commissioning group system | Zara Aziz

‘GPs shouldn’t have to justify every single referral they make to hospital to their clinical commissioning group’ Photograph: Adrian Sherratt

Clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) came into being as statutory bodies in April 2013, as an intrinsic element of the government’s well being adjustments. Prior to this, they had existed in their “shadow” varieties when main care trusts (PCTs) have been slowly devolving.

The concept behind CCGs was to have frontline clinicians, this kind of as GPs, at the helm when it came to commissioning neighborhood and hospital care in England, and managing all around two-thirds of the NHS budgets. For instance, CCGs are accountable for commissioning outpatient, inpatient or urgent care received by individuals in their local hospitals. They commission district nursing and wellness going to services for their regional population. Nonetheless, NHS England nevertheless commissions GPs, and despite the fact that CCGs have been tasked with strengthening basic practice as a total, they do not hold GP contracts.

In my expertise in inner-city Bristol, since the start off of CCGs GPs have had far more clinical involvement. GPs, hospital physicians, nurses and pharmacists are all being represented on most CCG boards. This guarantees that the wealth of clinical expertise is taken from the consulting area to the boardroom.

A great deal of perform has gone into engaging frontline GPs like myself who are not actively involved with CCG operate. For instance, in our locality groups, we are often asked to engage in or come up with new initiatives to aid our nearby population groups. There have been some superb initiatives that have supplied GPs peer support and enhanced finding out in fields this kind of as paediatrics, prescribing and assistance for dementia sufferers. But there have also been challenges.

There is ultimately a finite sum of money accessible to CCGs and any services improvement has to be balanced towards cuts elsewhere. Referral management is an location that all CCGs appear at closely to create if any GP practices are “outliers”. So for instance, a GP practice that refers a good deal of patients to gynaecology clinics in hospital whilst its neighbouring practice has minimal referral prices may possibly come beneath scrutiny.

It could be that the practice has studying requirements or it might even be “overskilled” and consequently its GPs are far better at diagnosing troubles for distinct situations (that merit referral). Also numerous GPs work underneath demanding problems with spiralling workloads and can see between 30 to forty individuals a day, some of whom can be really ill. Obtaining to justify to the CCG every referral they make to hospital in the face of uncertainty, adds increasing pressure to that workload.

Occasionally our sufferers are unwell but could be managed in the local community, if we had ample district nurses or neighborhood matrons (which we will not). Usually it is the situation of the exact same individuals time and once more whom we struggle to maintain out of hospital when there are couple of beds and emergency departments are complete.

I know numerous CCGs are hunting at community-based alternatives to deal with these sufferers, this kind of as specialist geriatricians to advise us or “intermediate” beds (the place individuals can have some clinical care out of hospital). Ultimately, all these selections will be dependent on finances.

In contrast to PCTs, which have been created up of managers, GP-led CCGs comprehend GPs. Nevertheless, they may possibly not have the power or assets to change the huge picture. We are twelve months down the line and though there are constructive signs, we are still on unknown territory. CCGs do have hard challenges as they try out to apply their prolonged-phrase strategic programs, in the encounter of an ageing population and escalating prevalence of disease.

A yr on, problems remain in the NHS clinical commissioning group system | Zara Aziz

Does the NHS need to have to ration cancer treatments? | Zara Aziz

Finite resources: Britain is struggling to keep pace with suggestions that are coming by way of the perform of cancer analysis. Photograph: Christopher Thomond for the Guardian

Cancer forms a big part of my functioning lifestyle. Each day I make a single or two suspected cancer referrals (usually for breast cancer), and stick to up people beneath oncology or palliative care. It is an emotive and intensive area to work in – far more so than almost something else that I have seasoned.

With cancer, the emphasis is usually on early diagnosis, attaining full cure or symptom-cost-free longevity. It is the professionals who make a decision on the suitability of remedies this kind of as surgical procedure, radiotherapy or chemotherapy.

These selections are based mostly on the kind of cancer, the stage the ailment has reached, and different suggestions. For instance, the Nationwide Institute for Wellness and Care Excellence (Good) requires a robust proof-based mostly approach just before it approves drugs.

In addition, NHS England’s Cancer Drug Fund was founded in 2010 to ensure a more equitable allocation of costly cancer medication, which have been not Great accepted but suggested by medical professionals. This has assisted to reduce nationwide variations in the availability of cancer medication. A patient’s specialist can apply to the fund if they really feel there are potential advantages.

But there have been concerns that this fund has been politically motivated and not proof primarily based, with most of the newer medication extending existence expectancy only modestly. And what is worrying is that medication are commencing to be rationed, as the fund runs out of money.

There is also talk among authorities of possible costs for some cancer treatments, for individuals who can afford to pay. We can debate the ethics of an personal having to pay for their own £65,000 experimental cancer therapy that prolongs life-expectancy by six months. But when we begin speaking of introducing expenses, the place do we draw the line as to what need to or should not be paid for?

It is fair that there need to be no nationwide variations on how medicines are allotted. It is appropriate that cancer funds for specialist medicines ought to be held at nationwide ranges as opposed to resting with neighborhood commissioning groups. I accept that there is a finite quantity of income in the NHS, which has to be relatively distributed to a lot of essential regions of the well being support, including psychological wellness, dementia, children’s providers and disease prevention (such as cancer prevention).

Would it really be prudent to spend tens of 1000′s on a cancer drug whose efficacy had not been proven, or that offered only a small likelihood of prolonging daily life expectancy, and only by a couple of months? But most of us would want that tiny hope if it were for ourselves or for a loved one particular.

The 1st time I looked soon after a little one with cancer, his oncologist had told his parents that nothing additional could be accomplished. They cashed in all their cost savings and took him abroad for a 2nd viewpoint. He did not make it, but his dad and mom knew that they had experimented with their greatest for him.

We, as a nation, are struggling to keep tempo with suggestions that are coming by way of cancer research. We lag behind Europe when it comes to cancer survival charges. Our emphasis should also consist of cancer prevention and eliminating waste elsewhere inside of the NHS.

There are numerous missed appointments, delayed hospital discharges through inadequacies in social care, and inappropriate polypharmacy, all of which pile on the expense. If we can decrease these inefficiencies, then we can realistically know regardless of whether we can spend for what really issues in the NHS.

It is up to the people to choose what is crucial to them in the NHS and how the money must be allocated inside of distinct regions. We need a public debate on the topic to set up priorities. I suspect most will decide on timely and large specifications of clinical care over all else. I believe men and women could be in favour of some form of rationing if they understood that there is a genuine proof base and if they could be confident that funds had been being utilised reasonably.

•

Does the NHS need to have to ration cancer treatments? | Zara Aziz

GPs and individuals do far better in which practices have boundaries | Zara Aziz

When velocity counts: sufferers who reside near to their physician are far better positioned to attend appointments at short observe. Photograph: David Sillitoe for the Guardian

At the latest unveiling of the new GP contract for 2014/2015, it was announced that practice boundaries would be abolished in order for all GPs to be capable to register individuals out-of-area. There would be no obligation to give residence visits for these individuals. Any urgent medical care essential for these patients closer to house would be co-ordinated by NHS England, via some form of authorisation by the “distant” GP.

My surgery has about 14,000 individuals, numerous of whom are students at the nearby university. Where it is reasonable and safe to do so, we at times seem soon after their health demands by telephone or even email when they are back at house in their holidays. But, in basic, college students do not have complicated wellness problems or get multiple prescription drugs. When travelling, some of our individuals select to register temporarily with their nearest GP if they require to be observed in an emergency. But sufferers with considerable well being issues typically want intensive input and regular consultations with a GP, rather than in an out-of-hrs or other urgent-care setting, and telephone consultations have their limitations.

Like many GPs, I perform via a program of phone triage. Minor issues are managed in excess of the phone, even though any individual needing an examination or a encounter-to-face discussion is usually provided a exact same-day appointment. The method operates because most of our patients live locally and can get to us at quick notice. Those functioning away for the duration of the day are provided evening appointments.

A single patient, Katy, finds Christmas and new year challenging. She suffers from anxiety and depression, and a move to Wiltshire has heightened her signs and symptoms. She is struggling to move practices as it has taken her many years to create a rapport with a GP. Analysis of eye contact, physique language and tone of voice are some of the components of a psychological wellness evaluation, and over the telephone I struggle to perform out how she is actually feeling. We both agree she needs to uncover a nearby GP.

Geographically, our practice boundaries are currently very generous, and we do not unreasonably inquire sufferers to register elsewhere when they move out of the spot. New housing developments and an influx of college students and migrants have swelled our numbers. We have needed to utilize far more doctors, even though recruitment is not constantly an straightforward process. My be concerned is that abolishing boundaries will boost our patient numbers more and include to an previously unsustainable workload. We do not want to near our lists, a move that would be detrimental to local patients, who may be forced to register a lot of miles away.

On most days we do house visits for our housebound or very unwell individuals. This is generally done by the medical professional who very best understands the patient, in buy to offer continuity. It is probably that most of these patients would decide on to register with a medical professional inside a realistic distance in any situation. But some practices have fairly limited boundaries (say about two miles) and this is based on their ability to cope with demand. On occasions when I have visited someone even 4 miles away, I have struggled in city site visitors to get back in time for evening surgery. If our practice boundary is limitless but the going to boundary is two miles, a lot of of the housebound would be visited by urgent-care companies. Where is the continuity of care? These patients would be far better served if registered with the nearest GP practice.

The government feels that abolishing boundaries will include to patient choice and increase standards in common practice by way of competition. But there seems to be small demand for abolishing boundaries. In our practice no patient suggestions has highlighted unmet require in this location. Certainly, it would be useful for some individuals to register away from house, for instance close to their spot of perform, and allowances should be created for that. But this need to not be at the price of the regional population, especially individuals with severe healthcare requirements.

GPs and individuals do far better in which practices have boundaries | Zara Aziz