Will GPs “lead” or “govern” the new clinical commissioning groups?

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this article is to delve into the precise leadership and governance roles required of general practitioners (GPs) in England as they are propelled into clinical commissioning groups (CCGs).

Design/methodology/approach

A conceptual framework which captures the complementary essences of both leadership and governance is developed and then used to assess the extent to which GPs will be undertaking leadership and/or governance roles under the reformed National Health Service (NHS) plan.

Findings

It is found that there are some key particular aspects of both leadership and governance which are likely to be required of GPs as they form clinical commissioning groups. These elements are identified and discussed.

Practical implications

Using this analysis, general practitioners, health service managers and policy makers will be able to make a more informed assessment of the roles that they will have to adopt in the future and those roles which they may find it difficult to play. GPs in future will need to expand their roles in line with new responsibilities. The ways in which, and the success with which, they discharge their new roles will depend crucially on how they, and significant others (NHS managers), understand the nature of leadership and governance.

Originality/value

Most analyses of the new GP commissioning consortia have focused on issues concerning size and structure of commissioning consortia, the risks involved, the population size required, and risk. This article is original in its clear focus on the teasing‐out of the distinct leadership and governance elements required under the GP commissioning arrangements.

Citation

Storey, J. and Grint, K. (2012), "Will GPs “lead” or “govern” the new clinical commissioning groups?", Leadership in Health Services, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 263-272. https://doi.org/10.1108/17511871211268900