The RCGP has published a new report on GP retention which calls for the development of a ‘national retention strategy’ for general practice, including ringfenced funding.
The report recommended that protected learning time is ‘written in the GP contract’ and wants funding to be guaranteed for the continuation of the NHS Practitioner Health mental support service.
It also said the Government should to review the NHS long-term workforce plan, with a particular demand to ‘significantly increase’ the projected growth of the FTE GP workforce beyond the ‘inadequate’ 4% currently projected by 2036.
It highlighted that in September this year, the NHS in England had the equivalent of 1,557 fewer full-time fully qualified GPs than in September 2015.
RCGP chair Professor Kamila Hawthorne said the Government ‘must turn its attention to doing everything possible to retain our valued and experienced colleagues’.
‘This will require resource, absolutely – and we hope next week’s Budget includes ringfenced funding for a National Retention Strategy – but we also need a change in mindset, that gives as much focus to keeping experienced, qualified doctors in the profession, as it does to bringing new ones in,’ she said.
Other RCGP demands on retention
- Government should establish an independent workforce projection statutory body
- NHS England should develop a National Retention Strategy for general practice that ensures national consistency via ring-fenced national funding, oversight, and guidance.
- This could be owned by an independent workforce body
- NHS England should ensure that there is a local GP retention lead appointed in each ICB
- NHS England should develop a platform for sharing information and best practice for retention
- Protected learning Time should be written into a future GP contract, as part of negotiations between the Government and the BMA
- NHS England should guarantee ongoing funding for Practitioner Health services for all health and care professionals employed in the NHS
- The Home Office should grant international medical graduates (IMGs) across the UK the right to apply for Indefinite Leave to Remain upon completion of GP training
- NHS England should reinstate the IMG practice matching service
Source: RCGP
The report comes alongside a letter from the RCGP to the Public Accounts Committee, co-signed with other royal colleges, calling for it to reopen its inquiry into the NHS long-term workforce plan, which was disrupted by the general election.
The colleges want the PAC to complete the review and publish findings ahead of the Government’s upcoming NHS 10-year plan, and ahead of the next iteration of the long-term workforce plan due next summer.
The letter highlights National Audit Office (NAO) analysis which showed that the plan’s modelling had ‘significant weaknesses’ and ‘assumptions’ that may have been ‘optimistic’.
The public spending watchdog had also warned NHSE’s workforce ambitions for general practice were based on ‘significant’ substitution of fully-qualified GPs with trainees and SAS doctors.
In July, almost 10,000 GPs signed an RCGP letter demanding that the health secretary urgently reviews the long-term workforce plan, citing evidence that that the plan only aims to increase the number of fully-qualified GPs by 4% by 2037, compared to a 49% growth in hospital consultants.
Today’s letter to PAC chair Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, signed by the RCGP and other colleges including the Royal College of Physicians and Royal College of Nursing, said that it would be ‘helpful’ if the PAC could ‘provide clear findings and recommendations’ ahead of the ‘next iteration of the LTWP due in the summer of 2025’ as well as ‘feeding into the forthcoming 10-Year Health Plan’.
‘This would allow for possible improvements to be integrated into the future iteration and ultimately ensure that the NHS has the workforce it needs to make sure patients receive the care they deserve.’
Professor Hawthorne said the current workforce plan is ‘not fit for purpose’, and the variety of signatories to today’s PAC letter ‘demonstrates widespread concern that must be addressed’.
‘The Public Accounts Committee inquiry would be the ideal vehicle to do this, and its findings should feed into the NHS 10-year plan,’ she added.
They also need to pay salaried GPs the equivalent of hospital consultants-around £125,000 yearly, with built in admin time, consultants get at least 1 PA per week for admin. And 6 weeks paid leave and 6 weeks paid study leave.
Government should pay these costs separate to surgery funding which is for patient care to make sure wages are ring fenced to help recruitment and retention.
Work out Number of (FT)GPs for the surgery, calculated by BMA recommended ratio of 1 FT GP to every 1000 patients; then £125,000 per FT GP ie per 1,000 patients per year plus the 12 week cost of annual leave and study leave; said funding ring fenced and passed on directly to salaried GPs and to part pay partners-they can have the £125.000 for their clinical work plus on top what they decide for their managerial work.
I am deadly serious. Those useless hospital top managers get paid £150,000-£225,000 per year and do fuck all of any use. GP partners do management in their coffee break and do a better job. My sister is a consultant and staff governor. She does the trust managers work for them half the time when they balls it up. In her coffee break.
The 6 weeks a year paid study leave will help us keep up to date and reduce our referral rates so will save the NHS budget money overall.
My sister also told me that if pay had keep with inflation from the 1980s consultants would be on £300,000 a year.
So they are getting this cheap.
Because we are worth it. Like the L’Oreal ad. But actually we really are.
“F” ing and Jeffing is not very professional for a Doctor is it; also a sign of a poor vocabulary isn’t it.
I personally don’t trust anyone who doesn’t swear. Just saying.
‘ RIngfenced ‘ eh? Do you remember those Tories put a ‘Ring of Steel’ round the care homes during the height of Covid? but the hospitals still discharged Covidspreading patients to all those care homes, and at some point, close relatives were denied access to see a dying relative, unbelievably. Well, can you believe anything that is spouted by anyone about so-called ‘ringfencing’? ? Perhaps not: even if it becomes an actual piece of legislation you might doubt it.
HaHa! Good one. Not on Your Nelly, we all trust everything you say; presumably that’s why you prefer to remain “Not on Your Nelly” and anonymous: HaHa!
Regarding profanity… actually I think desperate times call for eye-catching language. To continue to toe the line with so much bullshit in our working lives contributes to the problem. There’s a time and place for nice language and this isn’t it. More power to you, Finola.