Tag: Primary Care

Why is FIT important for people with lower gastrointestinal symptoms?

If you consult your doctor about bowel symptoms, they may speak about getting FIT. What is FIT? In this context, it is nothing to do with exercise or how far you can run. FIT stands for faecal immunochemical test, which aims to detect blood in your faeces. The test is highly sensitive.

People with lower bowel symptoms such as a change in their bowel habits will understandably be concerned about the possibility of bowel cancer. The risk of colorectal cancer in people with a negative FIT, a normal examination and normal full blood count is <0.1%. This is lower than the general population risk of colorectal cancer. So this combination of clinical findings allows your doctor to conclude that you are very unlikely to have bowel cancer. However, many people with lower GI symptoms still do not undergo FIT before referral to a specialist.

Patients with a FIT of fHb <10μg Hb/g, a normal full blood count, and no ongoing clinical concerns do not need to be referred on a lower GI urgent cancer pathway but can be managed in primary care or referred on an alternative pathway with suitable safety netting if symptoms change. FIT can improve patient management. By fully implementing the use of FIT in people with lower GI symptoms in primary care, we can spare patients unnecessary colonoscopies, releasing capacity to ensure the most urgent symptomatic patients are seen more quickly in specialist clinics.

There are some patients for whom FIT is not suitable, such as those with iron deficiency anaemia, a rectal or anal mass, or anal ulceration. See below for further guidance on the use of FIT in people with lower GI symptoms.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/B2005_i_Using-faecal-immunochemical-testing-lower-gastrointestinal-pathway_primary-care-letter.pdf

https://www.bsg.org.uk/clinical-resource/faecal-immunochemical-testing-fit-in-patients-with-signs-or-symptoms-of-suspected-colorectal-cancer-crc-a-joint-guideline-from-the-acpgbi-and-the-bsg/

Why we need to put an end to the GANFYD culture in the UK

One of the causes of increased workload in general practice are the many requests that doctors get for letters from patients or from external organisations. It’s now so common that doctors have coined a term for it: GANFYD – Get A Note From Your Doctor.

It’s seems that large sections of society can’t function without these “letters from doctors”. Instead of using common sense or employing their own clinical advisers, external organisations make repeated requests to NHS doctors for letters which are not at all needed.

Often the worst offenders come from the public sector – e.g. universities who seem to look upon NHS general practice as a source of free occupational health advice for their students. Universities never – of course – offer to pay for this advice they get from NHS GPs.

Instead, university requests will come with a mealy-mouthed statement that any fee is the responsibility of the student. Like doctors are going to impose heavy fees on impoverished students who already have large debts and are who are often living in poverty.

Local government and schools are other frequent offenders, requesting letters for issues they could easily resolve themselves using some common sense. And perhaps surprisingly, the NHS is also a frequent offender (you would think that NHS Trusts would know better).

What’s the solution? I have concluded that to address the GANFYD problem, we need to remember the adage “money talks while bullshit walks”. But don’t charge patients. Change NHS regulations so the (suitably large fee) is the responsibility of the organisation making the request.

The NHS is under great pressure and we urgently need to do everything we can to reduce unnecessary work in the NHS so that NHS staff can focus on clinical work.

General practitioner perceptions of using virtual primary care during the COVID-19 pandemic

Whether it be a simple telephone call or more sophisticated video conferencing systems, virtual care tools have been in use in primary care settings worldwide in one form or another throughout the past two decades. Over time, these tools have grown in availability, matured in their capabilities, but played a largely supportive role as an alternative option to traditional face-to-face consultations. This all changed in early 2020 with the onset of the COVID_19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic presented a unique opportunity globally which put virtual care tools at the forefront of primary care delivery. The need for social distancing to limit disease transmission resulted in virtual care tools becoming the primary means with which to continue providing primary care services. Hence, our study’s goal was to capture the spectrum of GP experiences using virtual care tools during the initial months of the pandemic so as to better understand the perceived benefits and challenges, and explore what changes are needed to allow them to reach their fullest potential.

We carried out a global study to investigate this further, published in the journal PLOS Digital Health. We received 1,605 responses from 20 countries globally. Our results demonstrated that virtual care tools were beneficial in limiting COVID-19 transmission, improved convenience when communicating with patients, and encouraged the further adoption of virtual care tools in primary care. Challenges included patients’ preferences for face-to-face consultations, digital exclusion of certain populations, diagnostic challenges associated with the inability to perform physical examinations, and their general unsuitability for certain types of consultations. Practical challenges such as higher workloads, payment issues, and technical difficulties were also reported.

Learning from this global natural experiment is critical to both updating existing and introducing new health technology policies concerning virtual primary care. Doing so will be imperative to supporting and promoting the better use of these novel technologies in our evolving healthcare milieu.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000029

Should GPs in England be employed by the NHS?

The intense micromanagement of general practices by NHS England since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic in early 2020 has shattered the illusion that NHS general practitioners are truly “independent”. For example, during the pandemic, NHS general practices have often received weekly updates from NHS England on how they should provide primary care services.[1] The opening hours and working arrangements of general practices are also highly regulated by NHS England. And general practitioners are not independent contractors in the same way that professionals working in other fields or indeed primary care physicians working overseas would recognise. General practitioners are not even able to offer private medical services to their patients in the same way as NHS Trusts or dentists are able to do. In effect, they have all the disadvantages of being self-employed contractors and none of the benefits of being NHS employees.

For more than a decade, primary care in England has suffered from under-investment, and a lack of key staff such as general practitioners and practice nurses. The NHS hospital sector in contrast – although it also has its problems – has seen its funding and medical staffing increase at a much quicker rate than in NHS primary care.[2] And yet despite this, more NHS work continues to be shifted to primary care without being followed by a commensurate increase in funding and staffing. Attempts by NHS England to prevent this – such as the introduction of the NHS Hospital Contract – have failed.[3] It’s very clear that NHS England is not going to invest adequately in the current independent contractor model of general practice, making being a GP Partner increasingly unattractive for younger general practitioners.[4] It’s time therefore to look seriously at the alternative – GPs becoming salaried employees of the NHS.

Of course, being employed by the NHS is not a panacea. Many NHS staff employed by NHS Trusts suffer from stress and over-work, just like those working in primary care. But they are not personally responsible for the ownership of their employing organisations, and their income does not depend on how well their organisation performs financially. Their working hours are also better regulated than those of self-employed GPs.

If GPs had employment contracts similar to those of NHS consultants, they could then have job plans with time allocated for activities such as quality improvement, NHS management, teaching, training, and research. Currently, these activities are often done on top of their regular working hours. Working in organisations that employed large numbers of GPs would also create opportunities for a better career structure. For example, it may be possible to create posts for GPs who specialise in areas such as the care of the elderly or in child health; and for GPs who take on clinical leadership, quality improvement and NHS management roles in addition to a clinical role.[5]

Finally, GPs becoming NHS employees would make NHS England directly responsible for the delivery of primary care services, in the same way they already are for specialist services. It would be the responsibility of NHS England – not GPs – to ensure that patients had timely access to a comprehensive range of high-quality primary care services and the infrastructure needed to deliver this care.

An increasing proportion of NHS GPs are already salaried. The future for GPs therefore looks to be heading in this direction. The question for GPs is do they want to be employed by the NHS with similar terms of employment to consultants; or do they want to be employed by private companies and “mega-partnerships” with the inevitable variability in terms of employment that they will offer?

A version of this article was first published in the British Medical Journal.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.o406

References

1. Majeed A, Maile EJ, Bindman AB. The primary care response to COVID-19 in England’s National Health Service. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2020;113(6):208-210.

2. Anderson M, O’Neill C, Clark JM, Street A, Woods M, Johnston-Webber C, et al. Securing a sustainable and fit-for-purpose UK health and care workforce. The Lancet. 2021 May 22;397(10288):1992-2011.

3. Price A, Majeed A. Improving how secondary care and general practice in England work together: requirements in the NHS Standard Contract. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2018;111(2):42-46.

4. Rimmer A. GPs move towards industrial action after rejecting “rescue plan” for general practice BMJ 2021; 375:n2594

5. Majeed A, Buckman L. Should all GPs become NHS employees? BMJ 2016; 355:i5064

General Practice in England: The Current Crisis, Opportunities and Challenges

General practice or family medicine has historically been lauded as the “jewel in the crown” of the English National Health Service (NHS). General practice, at the heart of primary care, has continued to contribute to the high ranking of the NHS in international comparisons and evidence from several decades of research has shown that general practice in the UK has improved the nation’s health. Furthermore, it has provided equitable, cost-effective, and accessible care for all with the flexibility to adapt rapidly to a changing society and political climates, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic when there was rapid implementation of remote consultation models. However, this much-admired public sector service has recently come under unprecedented political and media spotlight instigated by the pressures of the current pandemic on the NHS. This coupled with collapsing morale among general practitioners (GPs), a shrinking GP workforce, inexorable demands, increasing workload, and decreasing real-terms per capita funding have caused many to sound alarm on a general practice in “crisis”. In this article published in the Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, we describe the evolving nature of general practice and the current crisis, as well as potential solutions and opportunities going forward.

The full article can be read in the Journal of Ambulatory Care Management.

DOI: 10.1097/JAC.0000000000000410

Why I don’t support GPs taking industrial action

I don’t support the BMA’s view that NHS GPs in England should consider taking industrial action. I think this will alienate the public and lose GPs support at a critical time. NHS England is not going to invest adequately in the current independent contractor model of general practice. Why does the BMA not ballot GPs about the NHS salaried option instead whereby GPs and their staff would become NHS employees?

The BMA’s GP Committee has always opposed the option of GPs becoming salaried employees of the NHS. For many years, NHS England has been unwilling to fully support the independent contractor model of NHS general practice. Instead, we are going to find the independent model gradually fading and GPs increasingly being employed by commercial companies contracted to deliver NHS services.

This will be a much worse outcome for GPs and patients than other alternatives. And in anticipation of all the responses from GPs about why the current independent model is better than salaried NHS employment, I know these arguments well and list them in a blog I published in 2013. I have been a GP partner for over 20 years and know how this model of NHS primary care works, including its strengths and weaknesses.

I make the counter argument about why we should pursue the option of GPs becoming salaried employees of the NHS (like the > 1m current NHS employees in the UK ) in an article I published in the BMJ in 2016. The BMA needs to consider this employment model seriously if it is to make working as a primary care doctor viable.

All the BMA’s attempts to prop up the independent contractor model of general practice in their negotiations and discussions with NHS England over the last 10 years have failed. Their latest attempt will also fail.

Patient-initiated second medical opinions in healthcare

A second medical opinion is a medical decision-making tool for patients, physicians, hospitals and insurers. For patients, it is a way to gain an additional opinion on a diagnosis, treatment or prognosis from another physician. Physicians seeking another colleague’s opinion may refer a patient to another consultant to gain further advice. Many health insurers mandate second opinion programmes to reduce medical costs and eliminate ineffective or suboptimal treatments. Hospitals may also require second reviews as part of routine pathology, radiology reviews or for legal purposes. consultant to consultant referrals. Patients in primary care may also request an opinion from a second specialist when unhappy with the opinion from the first specialist.

We carried out a systematic review to summarise evidence on (1) the characteristics and motivating factors of patients who initiate second opinions; (2) the impact of patient-initiated second opinions on diagnosis, treatment, prognosis and patient satisfaction; and (3) their cost effectiveness. The reivew was published in BMJ Opinion.

Thirty-three articles were included in the review. 29 studies considered patient characteristics, 19 patient motivating factors, 10 patient satisfaction and 17 clinical agreement between the first and second opinion. Seeking a second opinion was more common in women, middle-age patients, more educated patients; and in people having a chronic condition, with higher income or socioeconomic status or living in central urban areas. Patients seeking a second opinion sought to gain more information or reassurance about their diagnosis or treatment. While many second opinions confirm the original diagnosis or treatment, discrepancies in opinions had a potential major impact on patient outcomes in up to 58% of cases. No studies reported on the cost effectiveness of patient initiated second opinions.

The review identified several demographic factors associated with seeking a second opinion, including age, gender, health status, and socioeconomic status. Differences in opinion received, and in the impact of change in opinion, varies significantly between medical specialties. More research is needed to understand the cost effectiveness of second opinions and identify patient groups most likely to benefit from second opinions.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044033

Will the NHS survive without GPs?

That rhetorical questions like the recent one posed by some in the media are even asked shows how deeply ill-informed and distorted the discourse on healthcare has become in the UK. Any dispassionate observer would know that GPs are the bedrock of the NHS; and without GPs the NHS will collapse. Here are just a few home truths: GPs in England manage a wide array of acute and chronic health conditions through over 300 million patient consultations each year compared to 23 million A&E visits. [1] GPs issue about one billion prescriptions annually and have delivered two thirds of phase 1 covid-19 vaccinations. [2]

The public already know how hard their family doctors are working to care for them. Despite the challenges of the pandemic, soaring demand, a shrinking GP workforce and a workload that has often become unmanageable, GPs have one of the highest public satisfaction ratings of any public service in the UK. In a survey in July 2021, an overwhelming majority of patients (83%) rated their overall experience of GPs as good and 48.2% rated their experience as “very good.” [3] By contrast, in a comparable UK survey of adult hospital inpatients for overall experience in 2019, 48% of patients gave a score of 9 or 10 (good or very good).

General Practitioners are highly skilled professionals who manage extremely complex medical conditions with limited access to resources, including high-tech diagnostics, available in secondary care. GPs not only treat medical conditions, but through their longitudinal and relationship-based care, also manage non-medical problems. One in five patients consults general practitioners for primarily social problems rather than medical. [4]

Much of the reputation of the NHS in international league tables (ranked number one health system out of 11 countries in 2017 and fourth in 2021) rests on the efficiency and excellence of its primary care. [5,6] A year’s worth of GP care per patient costs less than an A&E visit and less is spent on general practice than on hospital outpatients. GP practices were paid an average £155 per patient in 2019/2020, but the average cost of treatment in A&E, without the cost of ambulance or overnight admission, could be up to £400. Yet for the past two decades funding for hospitals has grown twice as fast as for general practice. [1] Further, between 2005/6 to 2017 the proportion of money spent in general practice fell from 9.6% to 8.1%.

Recent surveys show two in three patients (67%) are satisfied with the appointment times available to them and 67% find it easy to get through to GPs. [3] General practice had to quickly adapt during the pandemic to provide safe care by fulfilling their public health role in protecting their patients and the community from covid-19. More patients now consult in primary care than the pre-pandemic with over half these appointments face to face. [7] There are however serious problems and challenges that patients face including access to GP services and the quality of their care.

The public deserves honesty and courage from political leaders, commentators, and policymakers. Rather than skirting over facts by blaming GPs, who currently deliver over 31 million appointments per month in England, politicians need to be honest with the public on what kind of healthcare the population needs and what they are currently getting.

The UK spends less per capita on healthcare than other comparable countries (0.27% of GPD compared to an OECD average of 0.51%). [8] The UK also has one of the lowest numbers of doctors in leading European countries relative to its population, behind Estonia, Slovenia, and Latvia (about 2.9 per 1,000 people, compared with an average of 3.5 doctors across the OECD). The OECD figure also includes hospital doctors which have grown. In England, between 2004 and 2021 the number of hospital consultants has risen by 83% (from 28,141 to 51,490). On the other hand, the number of permanent and locum qualified GPs in England has fallen with fewer GPs in December 2020 than the year before. The Nuffield Trust analysis shows the number of GPs relative to the size of the population has fallen in a sustained way for the first time since the 1960s with the shortage particularly marked in some English regions.

Lack of an adequate GP workforce is only part of the problem. The recent media attacks on GPs highlights a total disregard for a workforce already at breaking point. A record number of GPs are seeking mental health counselling, and many are leaving the workforce by taking early retirement or working abroad. Therefore, the question that we must ask is: if the NHS collapses, who will notice it? Those with platforms to undermine the NHS will be unlikely to notice it. The elite has the means and resources to seek healthcare outside the NHS and even abroad, but for everyone else the collapse of the system will be catastrophic.

The solution starts with putting a stop to attacks on GPs and the NHS by politicians and the permanently outraged sections of the media. Secondly, to achieve health outcomes comparable to other OECD countries, the NHS must tackle workforce shortages and the decline in quality of services. [9] The increasing health needs of an ageing population and the growing demand for better healthcare require more than alienating and undermining a workforce on whom the NHS depends. General practice could make better use of non-medical professionals such as social prescribers to reduce the workload and people could be sign-posted to services in the community without a GP referral. The administrative burden on primary care is also unsustainable and must be reduced; for example, by suspending CQC inspections. We also need a dialogue between the public, professionals, and politicians about what kind of primary care system they want in the UK; with plans then backed up with the appropriate level of investment. Health systems with a strong primary care infrastructure can achieve better health outcomes, improve patient experience, and reduce pressures elsewhere in the NHS. This should be the objective that we strive to achieve.

Mohammad Sharif Razai, NIHR In-Practice Fellow in Primary Care, St George’s University of London. Twitter: @mohammadrazai

Azeem Majeed, Professor of Primary Care & Public Health, Department of Primary Care & Public Health, Imperial College London @Azeem_Majeed

This article was first published in BMJ Opinion.

References:

  1. NHS England. Primary Care. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/five-year-forward-view/next-steps-on-the-nhs-five-year-forward-view/primary-care/ (accessed 19 September 2021)
  2. Patient Information. Where to get medication in an emergency. Available from: https://patient.info/news-and-features/where-to-get-medication-in-an-emergency (accessed 19 September 2021)
  3. NHS England.  GP Patient Survey 2021. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/2021/07/08/gp-patient-survey-2021/ (accessed 19 September 2021)
  4. Advice Services Alliance. The role of advice services in health outcomes: evidence review and mapping study. 2015. https://www.thelegaleducationfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Role-of-Advice-Services-in-Health-Outcomes.pdf.
  5. The Commonwealth Fund. Mirror, Mirro 2017. Available from: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/interactives/2017/july/mirror-mirror/ (accessed 19 September 2021)
  6. The Commonwealth Fund. Mirror, Mirror 2021. Available from: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2021/aug/mirror-mirror-2021-reflecting-poorly (accessed 19 September 2021)
  7. Royal College of General Practitioners. College sets record straight on face-to-face GP appointments. August 2021. Available from: https://www.rcgp.org.uk/about-us/news/2021/august/college-sets-record-straight-on-face-to-face-gp-appointments.aspx (accessed 19 September 2021)
  8. The Health Foundation. The UK spends less on capital in health care than other comparable countries. 2019. Available from: https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/charts-and-infographics/the-uk-spends-less-on-capital-in-health-care-than-other-comp (accessed 19 September 2021)
  9. Papanicolas I, Mossialos E, Gundersen A, Woskie L, Jha A K. Performance of UK National Health Service compared with other high income countries: observational study  BMJ  2019;  367 :l6326 doi:10.1136/bmj.l6326

Why MPs and journalists need to speak to their local general practices

The UK’s MPs and journalists repeatedly say they want “GPs to get back to work”. But instead of asking this, they need to speak to staff in their local general practices to understand what the issues are that are causing problems for patients in gaining access primary care services, whether via a face to face appointment or by telephone. The number of GPs per person in England has declined in recent years. At the same time, the volume and complexity of care has increased steadily year-on-year. These problems have been compounded by the rebound in primary care activity following an initial fall at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. Many GPs report that they and their teams are now dealing with a record level of work.

In this context, asking GPs to “get back to work” is insulting for them and their teams. GPs made major changes in the way they work at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic to protect patients – with little additional support from NHS England – and are now struggling with long-term shortages of doctors and other staff, and unsafe levels of workload. If GPs and journalists spoke to the staff in their local general practices, they would understand these issues better and also be more aware of potential solutions. Better-informed MPs and journalists might then actually be able to apply pressure on the government to urgently address the many problems that face NHS general practices in England, and bring an end to the culture of “sticking plaster solutions” that NHS England has offered in recent years.

GPs should not be made scapegoats for political failings

A recent article in the Daily Telegraph article asked “If the GPs went on strike, would anybody notice?” The article claimed that no one would notice if GPs went on strike and the author suggested that making all GPs salaried, forcing them to work longer hours, would help improve general practice for patients. The author quoted “a now retired GP in his 90s from Bristol who continued doing locum work until five years ago,” who apparently said, “Many GPs are using covid-19 as an excuse for not providing good clinical services. Being able to opt out of night/weekend cover and only working two or three days a week have caused the demise of general practice to the detriment of patients.”

As GPs we have worked throughout this pandemic often face-to-face in the most basic of personal protective equipment (PPE), and we were disheartened to read this piece.

GPs and their teams have played an essential role throughout the pandemic. GP teams in England alone deal with over 300 million contacts each year. General Practices have been running community hot covid clinics, and supporting NHS 111 and the Covid Clinical Assessment Service (CCAS). We are supporting 5.5 million patients on NHS waiting lists, who are often in severe pain and in need of extra support, as well as supporting about 1 million patients with the effects of long covid, and adapting to new ways of working enforced by a global pandemic. In addition, our teams have delivered the majority of covid vaccinations thus far. We are currently being asked to recall our most clinically vulnerable patients for their third covid booster vaccination. All this has been achieved despite the proportion of the NHS budget spent on NHS general practice and the number of GPs per person both declining in England in recent years.

We are already seeing that any small reduction in GP access causes rapid spill over into Emergency Departments, so just imagine if there were no GP service at all. The NHS would collapse. When GPs began to pull back from the covid-19 vaccination programme because of the mass vaccine sites taking over, for example, the rate of vaccination slowed—especially in the hardest to reach groups—and complaints increased from patients unable to access vaccine appointments.

If we look at prescriptions, GPs and their teams issue a vast number every year. If another part of the NHS tried to take on this work, an army of people would be needed—doctors, pharmacists, and administrative staff. Many higher risk medications need careful monitoring and regular review. Patients on most regular medication also require medication reviews, checks (e.g., blood tests, measuring blood pressure) to monitor safe prescribing and prevent drug interactions, and to deal with queries and frequent shortages and changes of medicines. The efficient systems that GPs have developed for prescribing means that they issue many prescriptions that would be given by hospital specialists in other countries.

Moreover, every patient seen in secondary care generates a letter, often with requests for GP teams to follow up patients, monitor their treatment, arrange blood tests, or prescribe.

The work of a GP can be incredibly rewarding as we build long term relationships with people over years, and there is strong evidence for the benefits of continuity of care (for both patients and the care provider).  GPs are true “generalists” and the uncertainty of undifferentiated illness is stressful, especially when working remotely. GPs in the UK work at a higher level of intensity than elsewhere in Europe. GPs in the UK have the shortest consultation times in Europe, and UK GPs tend to see more than twice the safe recommended number of patients per day.

BMA appointment data show huge increases in activity over the past 18 months. Yes, there are more telephone appointments and fewer face to face appointments, but this is the same in all sectors of society—and the same for both community and hospital care. It should come as no surprise, or make headline news, because remote working is in line with direct government policy and is there to protect both patients and staff from a highly infectious and potentially lethal virus. It is especially important to protect the many vulnerable individuals we look after in general practice, in a time when there are over 30,000 covid-19 cases reported daily in the UK.

Despite political promises for an additional 6000 additional GPs in England by 2024, there has been a reduction in numbers rather than an increase. While there is a clear link between ratios of family doctors and life expectancy, the number of patients per practice is now 22% higher than it was in 2015, and the GP workforce has not grown with this demand. As a result, there are now just 0.46 fully qualified GPs per 1000 patients in England, down from 0.52 in 2015, which, when added to growing demand from the rising number of people living with complex chronic illness and poverty along with an ageing population, means that primary care is in a desperate situation. GP turnover is higher in deprived areas further exacerbating health inequalities.

Demand on general practice is increasing, while at the same time general practices are struggling to recruit staff. The current deepening GP crisis that we are facing is having widespread effects on patient care nationwide. The current crisis long predated covid-19, but the pandemic has highlighted the large cracks in the NHS. GP teams should not be made scapegoats for the political failings, under-funding, and shortages of essential staff, which are the root cause of the issue.

General practice is often described as the “Bedrock of the NHS,” and the NHS Five Year NHS View states that “if General Practice Fails the NHS Fails.” We must be mindful of that, and instead of blaming GPs for the current crisis, look at what can be urgently done to alleviate the crisis.

Simon Hodes, GP partner in Watford, GP trainer, appraiser and LMC rep. Twitter: @DrSimonHodes

Frances Mair, Norie Miller professor of general practice. Twitter: @FrancesMair

Azeem Majeed, Professor of Primary Care and Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK, Twitter @Azeem_Majeed

This article was first published in BMJ Opinion.