There has been good and bad news across the NHS in Britain.
First, the bad. Commentators believe the long-predicted crisis for UK general practice is upon us. In my area of Forth Valley there are three practices that have been taken over by the health board because of an inability to recruit doctors; at the same time, governments in the four home nations promote what they are pleased to call "seven-day working"; finally, we have a minority of my professional colleagues calling for a salaried GP service.
It takes five years to train a GP but there is already a 20 per cent vacancy rate amongst new trainees and 30 per cent of those trained are contemplating emigration. One third of existing GPs are likely to retire within the next five years. The dire problems of replacing doctors in the remote and rural areas of Scotland have become evident in the heavily populated Central Belt and, despite this, and the fact that there has always been a 24 hours a day, seven days a week service for emergencies and urgent cases, we have the electorally popular promise of spreading the available jam over seven rather than five days a week.
To cap it all, some doctors propose a salaried service, not really to improve matters for patients but to seek protections over sickness, holidays and hours of work that employment law would provide.
How can it be that the discipline of general practice I entered 41 years ago has come to this? In 1974 when I arrived in Balfron, doctor morale was high. I look back with nostalgia to the GP Charter of 1966 constructed in a similar atmosphere of crisis by the-then Health Secretary, Kenneth Robinson. Overnight his GP contract had changed general practice from a disregarded backwater of the NHS into a properly funded enterprise with funding for new premises, sufficient support staff and strategies to stem the mass exodus of UK doctors abroad, mainly to Canada and the United States.
Nearly 50 years on, the same litany of bad and even worse news means that similar drastic action is needed. There is, however, good news but it is limited.
First and foremost, managers and politicians have finally recognised the irreconcilable dynamic of exponentially rising demand, limitation of both financial and human resource and the demographic time bomb of an ageing population for which medical and pharmacological technology can do so much more. The system is broken and only by understanding this can they, and we as a society, begin to fix it.
A salaried service will not fix it. The independent contractor status of GPs is good for the sanity of doctors. It's easier to face local problems with local leadership and solutions. But independent GPs are also good for patients who look to their doctor to be their advocate in an NHS of byzantine complexity and to provide continuity of care in the face of super-specialism in other parts of the service. So, it's good news that there is a commitment to adapt and improve the GP contract that could allow the NHS to begin again to value its highly skilled workforce.
General practice in all parts of the UK has rightly been described as the "risk sink of the NHS". Thankfully, politicians have begun to acknowledge the fundamental economic imperative: compromise the funding and support for general practice and the whole NHS edifice will collapse. Only now, with a late acceptance of that truth, can we recognise the good news that the status quo is untenable, and that change is essential.
Fortunately the NHS in Scotland is smaller, fleeter of foot and its managers and clinicians talk to, rather than shout at, one another.
The irony of the present situation is that we have seen it all before in the 1960s. UK general practice is recognised the world over as the most cost effective, responsive and personal service possible, where its doctors have the enormous privilege of providing continuous care to a defined population of individuals and families. Scottish doctors have always been in the vanguard of development and innovation.
While the Scottish Government and health boards have recognised the increasingly bad news, they have the opportunity and responsibility urgently to build upon the good - before it is too late.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article