The world is changing. The days of popping down to Toys ‘R’ Us for a present for the kids are over. Last week Toys ‘R’ Us announced it was closing all of its stores. According to toy industry analyst Jim Silver, “They lost online and they didn’t adapt.”

It is not just the toy industry that is changing. It is everywhere. Earlier this month Countrywide estate agents reported significant ongoing financial difficulties. In a statement they acknowledged they had not yet learned how to deal with the challenge from digital property services (such as Purple Bricks).

General practice is not immune to these changes. Lillie Road Medical Centre practice in Fulham, which last year started to offer the GP at Hand video consultation service to anyone outside its area living or working in London, has seen startling growth. Taking up the service requires patients to leave their existing practice and register as an out of area patient. The list size of the practice has grown from 5,000 to almost 25,000 in 4 months, and 85% of registrations have been patients aged 20-39.

The GP at Hand experience means the digital threat to general practice has just become real. The capitated payment system of reimbursement for general practice means losing the younger, healthier patients on the list, and being left with patients who are older with more complex health needs; and could result in income not matching costs. It could well be the final straw for many practices already experiencing financial pressure.

Should these changes be resisted? Are video consultations a “good thing”? In a paper published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, the team from the Department of Primary Care and Public Health at Imperial College London said that while there is evidence that video consulting is acceptable to patients and offers many potential benefits, at least to those of younger age, its safety and efficacy in primary care currently remains largely untested. It raises concerns that while online consultations may help practices manage demand more easily, it may conversely increase pressure through supply-induced demand, or defensive practices.

In our new society, video consultations are more about allowing patients to access services in the way they want to, and less about reducing workload for GPs. Increasingly, it is patients who are going to set the pace for changes like this. The early results from GP at Hand demonstrate for some there is an impatience to see these changes now. Our recent technology panel ultimately felt the profession would not be able to keep control of the use of technology, and it would be driven by patients, if not now then certainly at some point in the future.

We are only at the start of the “digital journey” in general practice. Technology is evolving all the time. Jim Forrer on the technology panel talked about an app currently in development that can monitor blood pressure, pulse rate, oxygen saturations and respiratory rate through the camera function on a smartphone. Technology will change the doctor patient interaction and the way patients manage their own health. Google and Amazon are entering the health space, using global cloud-based health platforms and data, and this is going to have an impact on general practice.

We may think in a tax funded system based on needs not wants that market forces won’t apply. But the reality (as demonstrated by GP at Hand) is they will, because people will not accept what they perceive to be a second class service when it comes to their health, and will demand that health services evolve in the same way as every other aspect of the world. Resisting the implementation of technology will, at best, be a short term strategy. The risk of that approach is that others will move in to fill the void and the opportunity to respond positively may be lost.

If we can’t stop the march of technology, and given the significant potential financial impact, can general practice survive the changes that are coming? Well, established players in other industries (unlike Toys ‘R’ Us and Countrywide) have. Take the experience of the supermarkets. Online grocery shopping is the fastest growing area in the sector, but it is the major supermarkets who understood the change was coming and set up their own services. While new entrants have come into the market, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Morrison’s and Tesco are the major players. Morrison’s are now building partnerships with those with better distribution networks such as Amazon and Ocado to further cement their place.

The world is changing. GP at Hand is simply the indicator that general practice is not immune to these changes. Right now the onus is on general practice to respond, to respond quickly and to respond positively. Part of the opportunity of the move to scale in general practice is precisely for this, as it enables practices to invest in technology or partner with technology firms, to test and develop its usage and to evolve the model of care. By working together, practices can meet this challenge. The other option, to resist the changes, to pass motions that “more needs to be done” by commissioners and policy makers to preserve the status quo has the whiff of King Canute on the beach, and may leave current GP practice businesses in a position like Countrywide or Toys ‘R’ Us, rather than evolving with the changes like the supermarkets.

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.