The Government will put forward legislation to create a single register for GPs and specialist doctors, the health secretary has revealed.
During a speech at the RCGP conference last week, Wes Streeting said that he is ‘committed’ to the creation of a single register with GPs and specialist doctors, and that the Government ‘will legislate to give the GMC the power to do it’.
In 2021, the Tory Government had set out plans to reform the GMC medical register to become a single register ‘where specialist status including being a GP is reflected through an annotation to the register’ – but this was never brought forward despite campaigning and support from the BMA and RCGP.
Mr Streeting told the conference: ‘I respect your profession and your expertise. General practice is a specialism.
‘That’s why I’m committed to the creation of a single register with GPs and specialist doctors, and this Government will legislate to give the GMC the power to do it.
‘It’s symbolic, but it’s also meaningful. It reflects the partnership I want to build with this profession. What I need from you in return is good will and the same team spirit.’
In the same speech, Mr Streeting condemned collective action organised by the BMA, as he said that it is ‘in no doubt shutting the door on patients’ and that their care ‘will suffer’.
He also announced that the Government is launching ‘a red tape challenge’ to ‘cut down’ on bureaucracy, in a bid to ‘free up GPs’ time to spend with patients’.
In 2016, the RCGP and BMA launched a campaign for general practice to be counted as a medical specialty, and merge the two separate GMC lists for GPs and hospital doctors.
GP leaders said that the move would allow GPs to work freely in other European countries, and would increase the standing of general practice and stop GPs from ’being second class citizens’ in medicine.
The college and the union set out that a single advanced medical register for senior doctors that ‘recognises them as specialists’ would ‘simplify the structure’ and make this expertise much clearer.
They argued that the change would support the GMC’s work to make the entire medical register ‘more helpful and informative’ for patients, employers and doctors, as well as future applicants to medical specialty training, including general practice.
The initiative was then backed by the GMC in 2017, which would give GPs ‘the recognition they deserve’.
I dont think most of us care about being renamed. What we want is more funding the rest is just waffle.
This seems like a positive and sensible step.
Our (GP) expertise is in managing and holding risk, treating the patient as a whole person, and in knowing something about everything.
Our secondary care colleagues don’t tend to manage risk in the same way, (perhaps understandably) tend to treat patients as episodic problems to be solved, and aim to know everything about something.
There has unfortunately been a significant Parity Of Esteem issue between GPs and Consultants which dates back many years. This is as true of our hospital colleagues as it is of NHSE and its managers. Much of this is cultural, and is rooted in the organisations in which they work. I think it is probably also true of the BMA – which is why GP terms and conditions have been tacitly allowed to deteriorate so badly compared to our hospital colleagues, over many decades.
This would appear to be a first, small step towards correcting that.
…though as RJAMK says, proper funding is the most pressing issue.
‘It’s symbolic, but it’s also meaningful. It reflects the partnership I want to build with this profession. What I need from you in return is good will….”
Really?!
Im going to offer you something that costs nothing and is worth nothing in exchange for something that should be worth something but isn’t.
Why don’t you go the whole hog and additionally generously tap the bottom of a saucepan with a wooden spoon once a week on a Thursday night?
Maybe the ‘collective action’ actually is having more of an effect on politcians than it is having an patients, symbolically or through pressure from IT companies on MPs income ?
On the other hand, I thought GMC already ran a single Doctor Register with an annotation for completion of GP training and inclusion on the GP Register. And i didn’t think it had anything to do with recognition to work in Europe : My inclusion on the Register as T (GP) does not even allow me to work in England, leave alone ‘Europe’ because I am only on the Wales Provider List.
I think this is a positive step. It is not the renaming per se that interests me but it is the potential contract changes that might be on the table with specialist registration.
If GPs were offered the option of a consultant based contract would those of us with GMC/ PMS contracts consider giving those up for a consultant contract based on hours/ PAs worked?
Would salaried doctors, locums and GPs in training see that as a better aspiration than partnership?
If we were salaried (on consultant-based contracts) it would be easier to integrate primary and secondary care services, as we could remove some of the competing interests. The reduced financial liabilities of partnership and certainty of income might attract and retain GP talent that we’re already losing.
How about this for a start, Consultant in Family Medicine.
Also move to a consultant rate pay scale with the same perks as their contracts.
It might help retain some GP’s in the workforce.
Film flam Wes at it again 😩. I am only interested in an expert generalist register for post CCT GPs. Single entity specialist I am certainly not. Collective action is safe for patients and good for all staff in general practice. Why on earth would we want to be tied to no doubt abusive government derived employment contracts 🤷🏻♂️
We don’t want claps or titles. Just proper funding.