Tag: Primary Care

The future of the NHS GP Quality and Outcomes Framework in England

My new editorial in the BMJ discusses the GP Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF). My conclusion is that QOF in England requires selective reform rather than wholesale abolition. While QOF initially improved recorded quality of care through financial incentives,  these gains are not always sustained long-term and may not reflect true clinical improvements.

Policymakers should be encouraged to retain the most effective elements — particularly those related to early detection and management of long-term conditions — while removing less useful or overly bureaucratic aspects. Going forward, QOF should be integrated into a broader strategy that supports sustainable quality improvement, continuity of care, and minimised administrative burden, using developments in information technology to support better outcomes and reduce health inequalities.

Majeed A, Molokhia M. Impact of pay for performance in primary care. BMJ 2025; 389 :r1171 doi:10.1136/bmj.r1171

Why we need a new funding model for NHS general practice In England

A properly weighted and adequately resourced funding model for general practices n England is essential if we are to reduce health inequalities and ensure high-quality primary care for all. The announcement of a review of the Carr-Hill Formula is therefore very welcome and long overdue.

The current NHS funding formula for general practice in England has not kept pace with changing population needs and does not sufficiently account for levels of deprivation or the complexity of care required in more disadvantaged communities. We know that general practices in deprived areas face higher levels of multimorbidity, greater social complexity, and significantly greater demand. Yet NHS funding for primary care has not adequately reflected these realities.

It is also essential that any changes to the Carr-Hill Formula are accompanied by an overall increase in funding for NHS general practice in England. Simply redistributing a fixed pot of funding risks creating new pressures in other areas that have funding taken away from them, and further destabilising primary care services that are already stretched. We need to increase overall investment in general practice so that patients in deprived communities receive the care they need without compromising provision elsewhere.

Assisted Dying: Serious Practical Questions Remain Unanswered

MPs who voted in support of assisted dying — and indeed many doctors and other healthcare professionals who support such measures — may not have fully considered the profound practical challenges this would present for the NHS and for medical education and training.

Implementing an NHS-based assisted dying service would be a vast and complex undertaking. At present, the NHS is neither prepared nor equipped to deliver such a service in a safe, equitable, and ethical way. There is no public funding allocated for assisted dying. As Secretary of State Wes Streeting has rightly pointed out, any future funding would inevitably have to come at the expense of other health services that are already under considerable strain.

Beyond funding, the educational and professional implications for the medical workforce have barely been addressed. There has been no clear plan for how assisted dying would be integrated into undergraduate medical education or postgraduate clinical training — nor how issues of conscientious objection, professional standards, and clinical governance would be handled in practice. Integrating assisted dying into undergraduate education and postgraduate training would require new frameworks, ethical guidelines, and practical training modules. Developing these educational and training programmes would take years and require significant investment, with no clear plans for this currently in place.

The complexity of implementation—financially, educationally, and ethically—suggests that any move toward assisted dying would require far more planning than current discussions reflect. Without addressing these fundamental questions, any move toward legalising assisted dying risks creating more problems than it solves. Policymakers, healthcare leaders, doctors, other healthcare professionals and the public deserve a much fuller and more honest debate about what such a profound change would truly require.

Abolishing NHS England will make only modest savings

Abolishing NHS England and reducing Integrated Care Board (ICB) staffing by 50% may appear substantial, but the projected savings – around £500 million annually if fully achieved – would represent only a modest increase (approximately 0.25%) in annual NHS funding in England, given the NHS England budget is approaching £200 billion per year. Evidence from past NHS reforms (like the 2012 Health and Social Care Act) shows mixed results; some efficiency gains but often offset by new layers of complexity elsewhere in NHS structures.

Without parallel initiatives to streamline administrative processes, improve efficiency, and enhance clinical productivity, such structural changes to NHS England and ICBs alone will not significantly improve frontline clinical care or health outcomes. Administrative costs, while important to minimise, make up a relatively small proportion of the overall NHS budget. Genuine productivity gains will therefore require systematic reforms aimed at reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and optimising workforce deployment, alongside strategically investing in information technology and process improvements.

Reference

Majeed A. Abolishing NHS England will make only modest savings. BMJ 2025; 389 :r788 doi:10.1136/bmj.r788

The Covid-19 pandemic five years on

As we reach the fifth anniversary of the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, this moment provides an opportunity for reflection on the many challenges faced by healthcare workers like me during the early days of the pandemic. At that time, the SARS-CoV-2 virus was a largely unknown entity. Clinical guidelines were still under development and personal protective equipment (PPE) was scarce. For those on the NHS frontline, the experience was marked by a mix of anxiety, urgency, and dedication to the patients we were trained to serve.

Unfamiliar Territory 

In the initial stages, Covid-19 was a “novel” infection. There was a scarcity of data on the illness, and the disease was manifesting in ways that were not entirely well understood. As primary care physicians, we were suddenly thrust into the realm of the unknown, treating patients with undifferentiated respiratory illnesses that did not yet have well-defined and evidence-based treatment protocols.

The Personal Risk Factor 

One of the most daunting aspects of those early days was the awareness of personal risk. It became apparent that healthcare workers were at a significantly higher risk of contracting the disease through their exposure to infected individuals. One thing struck me and others very profoundly was the pattern among the first NHS staff who died due to Covid-19. Many of them were like me: male, over 50, and from ethnic minority groups. This resemblance was not just a statistical observation; it was a stark reminder of my own clinical vulnerability and that of many of my colleagues.

Ethical Duty vs. Personal Safety 

Yet, despite these risks, we had patients to treat. Faced with an ethical duty to provide care, healthcare workers had to weigh this against the risks to their own health. It was an emotionally and ethically complex position to be in. While the fear and anxiety were real, they had to be balanced against our professional obligations to our patients and the NHS. It was a test of not just our medical skills but also our commitment to the Hippocratic Oath.

The Importance of Resilience 

The job had to be done, and so we donned our PPE, took the necessary precautions, and went to work. This resilience is a testament to the dedication of healthcare workers globally who stood firm in their commitment despite the many unknowns in early 2020. The role of healthcare providers in those critical moments was instrumental in broadening our understanding of the virus, which subsequently guided future public health responses, medical treatments and vaccination.

Ongoing Challenges 

The situation has evolved and we now know much more about Covid-19. We now also have vaccines that reduce the risk of serious illness, hospitalisation and death. Yet the lessons of those early days continue to resonate. Healthcare providers still face risks, both physical and emotional, particularly as new variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus emerge. The Covid-19 story is not over, particularly for those people who suffer recurrent infections or with Long Covid but the experiences of the past provide a foundation upon which we build our ongoing responses.

The broader implications of healthcare workers’ experiences during the Covid-19 pandemic extend far beyond individual resilience and sacrifice. These experiences have exposed critical vulnerabilities in global health systems, highlighting the urgent need for better preparedness, clearer communication strategies and equitable access to protective resources. Furthermore, the pandemic underscored profound health inequalities, notably the increased risks faced by poorer people, ethnic minority groups and the elderly. Recognising these inequalities provides an impetus for policy makers and healthcare leaders to implement structural changes, fostering a more robust, responsive, and inclusive approach to future public health emergencies.

Conclusions 

As we navigate the ongoing challenges posed by Covid-19, reflecting on where we began and the progress we have made since early 2020 is essential. The evidence presented in the Covid-19 Inquiry serves as a timely reminder of healthcare workers’ immense bravery, resilience, and sacrifice globally. While anxiety was palpable, commitment to patient care remained unwavering. Looking ahead, it’s vital we learn from these experiences, investing in preparedness, communication, and systems that protect both patients and those who care for them, ensuring we’re better equipped for future health crises.

Missed Appointments: An Opportunity to Address Patient Safety

Our recent article in the Journal of Patient Safety discusses the topic of missed appointments in healthcare. Missed appointments are often seen as an administrative inconvenience in healthcare; wasting appointments that could have gone to other patients. However, missed appointments are also a critical patient safety concern that can delay necessary interventions, worsen health outcomes, and erode trust between patients and clinicians. Instead of viewing them as patient noncompliance, we must shift our perspective to understand the underlying barriers that prevent people from attending their scheduled appointments.

Understanding the Root Causes of Missed Appointments

Patients miss appointments for a variety of reasons, many of which are outside their control. Socioeconomic challenges, work obligations, caregiving responsibilities, mental health issues, transportation difficulties, and previous negative experiences with the healthcare system all contribute to non-attendance. Disadvantaged populations – such as poorer individuals, ethnic minorities, the elderly and rural communities – face even greater hurdles in accessing healthcare. When these challenges are ignored, healthcare systems risk isolating the very patients who need support the most.

The Consequences of Missed Appointments

The impact of missed appointments extends beyond inconvenience. They disrupt continuity of care, leading to delayed diagnoses and potentially preventable complications. Patients with chronic diseases, such as diabetes, hypertension, or mental health conditions, face particularly severe consequences when they miss follow-ups. Additionally, when healthcare providers interpret missed appointments as a lack of commitment, punitive measures – such as discharging patients from services – can further alienate vulnerable individuals and create barriers to essential care.

Beyond direct clinical risks, there is also the issue of trust. Patients who feel unheard, rushed, or judged during healthcare interactions may disengage from the system altogether, leading to long-term avoidance of care. This breakdown in trust is a significant patient safety issue, as it discourages individuals from seeking timely medical attention.

A Patient-Centred Approach to Reducing Missed Appointments

Addressing missed appointments requires a fundamental shift in approach. Instead of punitive policies, healthcare providers should focus on identifying and removing barriers to attendance. Some key strategies include:

  • Understanding Social Determinants of Health: Recognising that financial constraints, transportation issues, and job inflexibility impact appointment attendance. Partnering with community organisations to provide support services – such as transportation assistance or mobile health clinics – can help overcome these barriers.
  • Creating a Compassionate Healthcare Environment: Patients are more likely to attend appointments when they feel valued and respected. Clinicians should take time to listen, address concerns, and ensure that healthcare settings are welcoming and inclusive.
  • Flexible Scheduling Options: Evening and weekend appointments can accommodate patients with demanding work schedules or caregiving responsibilities.
  • Leveraging Technology: Telemedicine offers an alternative for patients who struggle to attend in-person visits. AI-driven predictive analytics can also help identify individuals at high risk of missing appointments, allowing for targeted interventions such as personalized reminders or proactive outreach.

Turning Missed Appointments into Opportunities for Improvement

Rather than viewing missed appointments solely as a problem to be fixed, healthcare systems should treat them as a diagnostic tool—an indicator of broader systemic issues. By shifting the focus to patient safety and proactive intervention, healthcare providers can transform these challenges into opportunities to improve engagement, build trust, and ensure that every patient receives the care they need when they need it. A patient-centred, safety-focused approach to missed appointments benefits everyone. It leads to better health outcomes, strengthens patient-provider relationships, and ultimately creates a more equitable and accessible healthcare system for all.

The Hidden Cost of Cheaper NHS Contracts: Losing Community Trust

NHS budgets are under considerable pressure. It is therefore unsurprising that many NHS Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) In England will aim to prioritise price in contract awards, But this approach is a significant threat to community-centred healthcare. While competitive tendering is a legally required, an excessive focus on costs in awarding NHS contracts risks overshadowing key factors such as established community trust, local expertise, and the long-term impact on continuity of care. This shift towards cheaper, often external, commercial providers threatens to cut the links between communities and their local health services. The argument that competitive tendering is solely about legal compliance, and not cost, is undermined by the very nature of such tendering, which by design encourages the lowest bid. This approach risks eroding the social fabric of local healthcare provision, where established relationships and understanding of specific community needs are essential.

Established local healthcare organisations – such as general practices and GP Federations – deeply rooted within their regions – possess an invaluable understanding of the intricate web of local health needs, existing healthcare networks, and the importance of continuity of care. This knowledge, developed over many years, allows these local healthcare providers to deliver care that is not only clinically effective but also culturally sensitive and responsive to the unique circumstances of the populations they serve. Distant, commercially driven firms, regardless of their operational efficiency, are unlikely to have this nuanced understanding. The potential exclusion of these local providers, who have built strong relationships with the populations they serve, could disrupt established care pathways, diminish the social value inherent in community-based healthcare, and ultimately lead to a fragmentation of services that undermines a holistic approach to patient care.

It is essential that ICBs adopt a more balanced and holistic approach to commissioning; one that transcends the narrow focus just on financial efficiency. This approach must recognise and value the long-term impact on community well-being, the preservation of essential local expertise, and the safeguarding of established relationships between healthcare providers and patients. A wider definition of ‘value’ needs to be adopted, one that includes social value, rather than simply financial cost. A system that truly prioritises patient outcomes and community health must consider the benefits of local knowledge and continuity of care, thereby ensuring that commissioning decisions are guided by a commitment to the long-term health and well-being of the communities they serve.

Why Vaccination During Pregnancy Matters

Pregnancy is a time filled with excitement, anticipation, and often, a touch of anxiety. Among the many decisions expectant parents make, one of the most crucial involves protecting the health of both the mother and the baby. Vaccination during pregnancy plays a vital role in this, yet uptake remains worryingly low in many regions.

The Importance of Vaccination During Pregnancy

Vaccines offered during pregnancy, such as those against influenza, pertussis (whooping cough), COVID-19, and the newly added respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine in the UK, are designed to safeguard the health of mothers and their babies. For example:

  • Influenza vaccine: Protects against severe complications from flu, which can be more serious during pregnancy.
  • Pertussis vaccine: Provides critical early protection for babies against whooping cough until they are old enough to be vaccinated themselves.
  • COVID-19 vaccine: Reduces the risk of severe disease and complications from COVID-19 during pregnancy.

Despite the proven benefits, many pregnant women remain unvaccinated, leaving them and their babies vulnerable to preventable diseases.

Barriers to Uptake

Several factors contribute to low vaccination rates during pregnancy:

  1. Concerns About Safety: A common barrier is worry about the vaccine’s safety for the baby. While extensive research confirms the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines, misinformation – often spread online or through social networks – fuels hesitancy.
  2. Access Challenges: Some pregnant women face logistical hurdles, such as needing separate appointments for vaccination instead of being offered vaccines during routine antenatal visits.
  3. Socioeconomic and Demographic Disparities: Vaccination rates are often lower among women from ethnic minority backgrounds and those living in deprived areas. For instance, a study in London showed significantly lower COVID-19 vaccination rates among Black women and those in economically disadvantaged areas.

Overcoming the Barriers

Improving vaccine uptake requires a multi-pronged approach involving healthcare providers, public health campaigns, and structural changes. Here’s how:

  1. Empower Through Education: Healthcare professionals, including midwives, general practitioners, obstetricians and pharmacists, play a critical role in addressing concerns, countering misinformation, and sharing the benefits of vaccination. These conversations should focus on the risks of not vaccinating and provide clear, evidence-based information about vaccine safety.
  2. Enhance Accessibility: Offering vaccinations during routine antenatal visits and using reminder systems (text messages, emails, etc.) can make it easier for pregnant women to get vaccinated.
  3. Tailored Interventions: Targeted campaigns in communities with low vaccination rates can address specific barriers and build trust. Community leaders and trusted figures can help spread positive messages about vaccination.
  4. Efficient Record-Keeping: Ensuring up-to-date vaccination records prevents unnecessary reminders and allows healthcare providers to focus their efforts on those who are unvaccinated.
  5. Supportive Healthcare Settings: Designating a staff member in clinics or practices to lead vaccination efforts ensures a coordinated approach and provides a point of contact for women with questions.

A Shared Responsibility

Vaccination during pregnancy not only protects mothers but also provides early immunity for their babies, saving lives and preventing illness. Addressing vaccine hesitancy and improving access to vaccines requires a collective effort from healthcare providers, public health bodies, and the community.

As an expectant parent, you have the power to make informed decisions that protect your health and that of your baby. If you have questions or concerns about vaccines, talk to your healthcare provider. Together, we can create a safer, healthier future for you and your child.

For more information, visit the NHS vaccinations in pregnancy page.

Read also my recent article in the British Medical Journal.

Bridging the Digital Divide in Healthcare: Understanding the Use of the NHS App

The NHS App, launched in 2019, was designed to revolutionise how patients engage with their healthcare, offering features such as booking appointments, viewing medical records, and ordering prescriptions. While the app has seen substantial uptake—with millions registering and engaging—it appears that the benefits of this digital innovation are not evenly distributed across the population as we report in our article in the Journal of Medical Internet Research.

The Promise of the NHS App

Digital health tools like the NHS App hold the potential to empower patients, improve self-management of health, and increase access to care. From March 2020 to June 2022, millions of users logged into the app, ordered prescriptions, and accessed medical records. However, a closer look at the data reveals disparities in who is using these features.

The Digital Divide in Action

Our recent study highlights how sociodemographic factors influence app engagement. Key findings include:

  • Socioeconomic Disparities: People in more deprived areas are significantly less likely to use the app. For instance, the rate of app registrations was 34% lower in the most deprived practices compared to the least deprived.
  • Ethnic Differences: Practices serving populations with higher proportions of White patients showed far greater engagement. Prescription ordering rates in these areas were over double those in more ethnically diverse regions.
  • Age and Health Needs: Younger patients were more likely to use appointment booking features, while those with long-term conditions engaged more with medical record views and prescription services.
  • Gender Gaps: Practices with higher proportions of male patients reported lower app engagement overall.

Why Does This Matter?

The NHS App aims to make healthcare more accessible for all, but these disparities suggest that its benefits may not be reaching those who need them most. This mirrors the “digital inverse care law,” where digital solutions are disproportionately used by those with better access and resources, potentially exacerbating health inequalities.

How Can We Close the Gap?

To ensure the NHS App works for everyone, targeted efforts are needed:

  1. Digital Literacy Programmes: Equip underserved communities with the skills needed to navigate digital tools.
  2. Tailored Outreach: Highlight the App’s benefits to specific groups, such as ethnic minorities and those in deprived areas.
  3. Enhanced Support Services: Offer helplines or in-person assistance for individuals less familiar with digital health platforms.
  4. Collaborations with Community Groups: Partner with local organizations to raise awareness and build trust in digital healthcare solutions.

A Call for Inclusive Digital Health

The findings of our study underscore the importance of continuously monitoring and adapting digital health strategies to meet the needs of diverse populations. The NHS App is a powerful tool with the potential to enhance healthcare accessibility, but its success depends on equitable adoption and use.

Let’s work towards a future where digital health bridges gaps rather than widens them, ensuring better health outcomes for everyone, regardless of their background.

Improving Migrant Healthcare: An Evaluation of of Health Catch-UP!

In today’s interconnected world, migration is a key feature of modern societies. The UK has become home to a significant number of migrants seeking new opportunities or fleeing difficult circumstances. Yet, this group often faces unique healthcare challenges, including the risk of undiagnosed infectious and non-communicable diseases and incomplete vaccination records. Addressing these issues is crucial not only for individual well-being but also for broader public health. In a recent article published in the journal BMC Medicine, we evaluated Health Catch-UP!, a digital tool designed to bridge these healthcare gaps.

Understanding the Need

Migrants when compared to local populations are more vulnerable to certain health conditions that are common in their countries of origin. These range from infectious diseases like hepatitis and latent tuberculosis (TB) to non-communicable conditions like diabetes and high cholesterol. Unfortunately, current healthcare services in the UK often overlook these needs, leading to underdiagnosed health issues and missed opportunities for early treatment and prevention.

What is Health Catch-UP!?

Developed as a Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS), Health Catch-UP! is integrated into primary care practices to prompt healthcare providers to offer tailored screening and catch-up vaccinations for at-risk migrant patients. The tool works by collecting key demographic information (such as age, sex, and country of origin) and using this data to recommend relevant health checks and vaccinations according to current UK guidelines.

Key Findings from the Study

Our recent evaluation of Health Catch-UP! in two London-based primary care practices revealed several important insights:

Successful Data Collection: The tool enabled almost complete coding of essential patient demographics, which are often missing from standard records.

High Screening Uptake: Over 60% of the participating migrant patients were eligible for screening, with an impressive 87% choosing to undergo the tests.

New Diagnoses: Through the screening, 12 new health conditions were identified, showcasing the tool’s potential to detect previously unrecognized health issues.

Challenges with Vaccinations: Despite identifying gaps in vaccination coverage, the actual uptake of vaccines was low. This highlights the need for more patient engagement and support in this area.

Patient and Healthcare Staff Perspectives

The feedback from both patients and healthcare professionals was largely positive. Patients appreciated being offered comprehensive health checks, especially when these were explained clearly by their providers. Clinicians found the tool to be user-friendly and felt it integrated well with existing practices. However, they noted that certain questions, such as asking about the date of arrival in the UK, could make some patients uncomfortable. Clear communication was key to overcoming this challenge.

The Road Ahead

While Health Catch-UP! has shown promise in improving healthcare access and outcomes for migrants, there are hurdles to overcome. Low vaccination uptake suggests that more robust patient education and logistical support are needed. Additionally, financial and staffing resources will be critical for widespread implementation, particularly in high-migrant areas.

Conclusion

Health Catch-UP! is a step forward toward more inclusive and effective healthcare for migrants in the UK. By tailoring healthcare to the needs of this diverse group, we can ensure better health outcomes and a stronger, more equitable healthcare system for all.