Lorna Hardy, Daniele Carrieri, Alex Aylward, Karen Mattick, Geoff Wong, Jane R Smith
{"title":"Workplace wellbeing for the general practice workforce across England: mapping current services.","authors":"Lorna Hardy, Daniele Carrieri, Alex Aylward, Karen Mattick, Geoff Wong, Jane R Smith","doi":"10.3399/BJGPO.2025.0169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The rising prevalence of poor workplace wellbeing in healthcare practitioners has been defined as a global crisis, threatening the sustainability of healthcare systems and the quality of care. General practice staff in England are especially impacted, yet it is unclear how support for this workforce is delivered, and where accountability for this sits.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To map the provision of wellbeing strategies and interventions for the general practice workforce in England.</p><p><strong>Design & setting: </strong>Survey and review of grey literature in contemporary England general practice.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We sent Freedom of Information (FOI) requests between 28 February 2025 and 12 March 2025 to all integrated care boards (ICBs) in England. We also sought existing information sources via targeted searches (for example, of professional organisation websites) and through engagement with relevant stakeholders, who also guided our methods, analysis, and dissemination.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All 42 ICBs in existence at the time responded to the FOI request. Responders' roles and responses varied widely, including the extent to which general practice staff wellbeing was seen as the responsibility of the ICB and whether or what wellbeing services were offered. We identified 139 wellbeing services available to general practice staff via the FOI and 53 via the targeted searches. In total, 79 of the services were reported as being primary care staff-specific. Most services appeared to be reactive and aimed at the individual level.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This is the first study mapping workplace wellbeing services for the general practice workforce across England. Our results suggest there is an interest in staff wellbeing. More preventive approaches addressing systemic workplace wellbeing factors are now needed. Future research should evaluate the impacts of wellbeing support for the general practice workforce.</p>","PeriodicalId":36541,"journal":{"name":"BJGP Open","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BJGP Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2025.0169","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The rising prevalence of poor workplace wellbeing in healthcare practitioners has been defined as a global crisis, threatening the sustainability of healthcare systems and the quality of care. General practice staff in England are especially impacted, yet it is unclear how support for this workforce is delivered, and where accountability for this sits.
Aim: To map the provision of wellbeing strategies and interventions for the general practice workforce in England.
Design & setting: Survey and review of grey literature in contemporary England general practice.
Method: We sent Freedom of Information (FOI) requests between 28 February 2025 and 12 March 2025 to all integrated care boards (ICBs) in England. We also sought existing information sources via targeted searches (for example, of professional organisation websites) and through engagement with relevant stakeholders, who also guided our methods, analysis, and dissemination.
Results: All 42 ICBs in existence at the time responded to the FOI request. Responders' roles and responses varied widely, including the extent to which general practice staff wellbeing was seen as the responsibility of the ICB and whether or what wellbeing services were offered. We identified 139 wellbeing services available to general practice staff via the FOI and 53 via the targeted searches. In total, 79 of the services were reported as being primary care staff-specific. Most services appeared to be reactive and aimed at the individual level.
Conclusion: This is the first study mapping workplace wellbeing services for the general practice workforce across England. Our results suggest there is an interest in staff wellbeing. More preventive approaches addressing systemic workplace wellbeing factors are now needed. Future research should evaluate the impacts of wellbeing support for the general practice workforce.