The concept of “primary care networks” is one of the most confusing I have come across in recent times. This is saying something given the plethora of new acronyms and ideas that have sprung to prominence in the last few years (think STP, PACS, MCP, PCH etc). Here I try and unpick what they actually are.

Primary care networks have something of a mysterious past. They first appeared in NHS England’s update last year on the Five Year Forward View, where they claimed they would,

“Encourage practices to work together in ‘hubs’ or networks. Most GP surgeries will increasingly work together in primary care networks or hubs. This is because a combined patient population of at least 30,000-50,000 allows practices to share community nursing, mental health, and clinical pharmacy teams, expand diagnostic facilities, and pool responsibility for urgent care and extended access. They also involve working more closely with community pharmacists, to make fuller use of the contribution they make. This can be as relevant for practices in rural areas as in towns or cities, since the model does not require practice mergers or closures and does not necessarily depend on physical co-location of services. There are various routes to achieving this that are now in hand covering a majority of practices across England, including federations, ‘super-surgeries’, primary care homes, and ‘multispecialty community providers’. Most local Sustainability and Transformation Plans are intending to accelerate this move, so as to enable more proactive or ‘extensivist’ primary care. Nationally we will also use funding incentives – including for extra staff and premises investments – to support this process.”

I remember reading this last year and thinking that it looked anomalous, out of kilter with the prevailing rhetoric of supporting GPs to manage their way out of the current crisis with the promise of extra resources and extra staff. They had not featured in the GP Forward View, where you would expect such a dramatic change for general practice to take centre stage, or even before that in the Five Year Forward View.

Maybe there had been a mistake, some sort of internal breakdown in communications within the towers of NHS England. But no, in an article in GP Online from March last year, NHS England’s Director of Primary Care Dr Arvind Madan said of these networks,

“This now becomes the new delivery scaffolding across the system. And it may be how they organise themselves in terms of access, and population and place-based care, and how they will be meaningful neighbourhoods for services to patients in terms of the offer they get too.”

But then all went quiet again on the primary care networks front. Despite the boldness of the earlier claims, nothing was seemingly happening to make these stated ambitions a reality. Efforts focussed on supporting practices through clinical pharmacists, resilience support and the like.   Until, that is, the recent planning guidance was published, which mentioned “incipient primary care networks” (like they are even a thing) and CCGs were told to “actively encourage every practice to be part of a local primary care network”.

What should we make of this? What is a primary care network? I can imagine CCG leads reading the words in the planning guidance and scratching their heads at what exactly it is they are being asked to do.

The use of “primary care network” seems to have appeared because learning from the vanguards demonstrated that for accountable/integrated care systems to work, they require general practice to be joined together into populations of 30-50,000, as the building blocks of the new system. This joining together of practices, how it happened and what it looks like is very different within each of the vanguards, although was consistently borne out of a huge investment of time, relationships and effort into building and developing trust. The term on its own, however, merely describes the end-state.

It also appears to be a term used to retrospectively fit the move in general practice towards operating at a greater scale into a policy direction. According to NHS England the “routes” to primary care networks include “federations, super-surgeries, primary care homes, and multispecialty community providers”. All very different things. Yes, they all involve previously separate GP practices working together, but they cover a very broad spectrum of what that means in practice. The term primary care network is seemingly used as a generic descriptor of where different areas who have embarked upon a journey of practices working together have arrived.

Herein lies the complexity. A primary care network is not an actual thing that can be defined or described in any detail. This is because the journey for each group of practices that chooses to work together is different and will lead to a wide range of different destinations. For some it will end up in super-practices, for others a federation, for others a primary care home, and for others something totally different. Most confusingly, very few (if any) will end up at a place that is called a “primary care network”.

So let’s not add “primary care network” to the already full lexicon of NHS terminology. Joint work across GP practices is a journey not a destination, and use of the term primary care network pulls focus unhelpfully away from the journey and onto the destination. Let’s hope CCGs do not take their new commands to heart, and that a new industry doesn’t arise in trying to create something that we can’t define.