Ben Gowland argues that working at greater scale is not the panacea for General Practice that some would have us believe.

To many outside observers the problems facing General Practice seem quite straightforward. There are nearly 8000 small businesses, many of whom are finding their current business model to be unsustainable. Clearly what is needed is for there to be a consolidation of the businesses, so that there are fewer, each of a bigger size, with greater operational and financial resilience.

But is this really the answer? Reports have emerged recently about a federation in Doncaster going into administration after running into financial difficulties. Not only did operating at scale in this instance fail to provide the answer to the current pressures for this set of practices, but it also cost them as much as £20,000 each to find this out.

Operating at scale can help practices. But it is not a solution in itself. Rather it enables other solutions to be put in place. It means the practice can cope better with staff who want to work part time, it creates the critical mass to introduce new roles, and it enables the provision of sufficient management capacity for further change. Larger practices can access more capital, invest in buildings and technology, and play a much larger role in changes across the whole system.

But these benefits are not automatic. They are not delivered simply because the practice is now operating at a greater scale. If two or three practices merge or form a federation these benefits will not necessarily follow.

This is because the journey is often not straightforward. As one GP put it to me recently, “(these changes) have the potential to help the practice but if they are introduced badly they could also make things worse… Working as a group could definitely improve things if developed well, but could also drain effort and resources without giving enough benefits in return”.

Ultimately it is the way the change is made that is important. Not the practical legal governance issues (these are straightforward enough), but the engagement of hearts and minds, the development of a shared set of values, and the setting of common goals that will determine success or otherwise for those parties deciding to get bigger together.

The right question is not to ask whether operating at scale is an answer for General Practice. Rather it is to ask; are practices capable of changing the scale at which they operate? Does the expertise exist in General Practice to ensure the benefits of getting bigger outweigh the effort and resources required to get there?

In pockets the answer is yes but in general it is no. Some practices can, and have, made changes that have delivered huge benefits for them. But many practices are stuck in a vicious circle of increasing workload and worsening finances, and haven’t the capacity for a discussion about whether to make a change, let alone to implement anything significant. Telling them to operate at scale, or even employ a pharmacist, or introduce web-based triage simply is not going to help. And using a contract to try to force the change misses the point: the issue is capacity and capability to change, not resistance to trying something new.

Operating at scale is an answer for General Practice, but not the answer. The answer is headroom for practices to make changes to the way they operate; it is help with the process of identifying and making these changes; and it is resources to make these changes happen.