There’s a dichotomy between the resources that are being put into general practice and the national messages that are being given about the service. Is this deliberate, and is general practice the victim of some elaborate plot against it? Or is it simply the ineptitude and lack of understanding of those making the decisions?

The problem is essentially this: nearly all of the funding that has come into general practice over the last three years has come via PCNs. And the majority of that funding has taken the form of the Additional Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS). This isn’t an insubstantial amount, and there are now nearly 20,000 additional staff working in general practice as a result of the ARRS.

Over that time, however, the number of GPs has actually fallen, despite heroic government targets of an additional 5,000, and then 6,000, GPs being put in place.

Demand, meanwhile, has continued to escalate. The aging population, the growth in comorbidities and frailty, the increasingly demanding and less tolerant nature of our society, the huge backlog from Covid, and the energy and economic crises are all making the workload skyrocket.

There was one advantage to Covid; it caused the rapid and effective adoption and widespread usage of virtual consultations. We would have got there eventually, but the pandemic meant this was instigated more quickly.

So, we’re left with a situation of high demand, fewer GPs, new additional roles and virtual consultation capacity. At this point, one would think the government and the media would be stressing the pressures that practices are under and the need for patients to be seen by the most appropriate professional, either virtually or face to face, according to need.

What, however, did the government do? They launched their “plan” for patients, in which they stated that all patients could be seen within two weeks by their GP whenever they wanted.

In the latest Practice Index Practice Manager Panel podcast , I discuss the absurdity of this situation with panel regulars Robyn Clark and Nicola Davies. Their frustration with the situation is evident!

We need a huge media campaign to inform the public that the allocation of face-to-face appointments with GPs is based on need not want. We need the public to know about the introduction of multi-disciplinary teams into practices, the appropriateness of being seen by a whole range of healthcare professionals, and the value of virtual appointments in terms of their convenience for both patients and practices. Virtual appointments also create capacity to enable patients to be seen by their GP when they really need to be seen.

But there’s no such campaign in sight! Why is this? I don’t think it’s a conspiracy or the result of ineptitude; rather, it’s political cowardice. It’s much easier, and more politically popular, to promise the unachievable if that’s what the public wants to hear, rather than embark on the difficult, honest conversation with the public that’s really needed.

Maybe one day we’ll get a government that will be prepared to level with the public and reinforce the point that patients can no longer expect to hear “the doctor will see you now”; instead, it will be: “your healthcare professional will consult with you in an appropriate time period”. However, given the current political climate, I don’t think this will happen anytime soon.