The traditional GP partnership model — a small group of self-employed doctors running a practice of 5,000–15,000 patients — is still the most common structure in English general practice. But it's no longer the only game, and the direction of travel is unmistakably toward scale.
GP federations, super-practices, APMS contracts held by corporate providers, vertically integrated organisations, and practice mergers are all reshaping the landscape. Some of this is positive. Some of it is concerning. And most GPs haven't had time to think about what it means for them.
What's actually happening
Practice mergers are accelerating. Practices that can't recruit partners are merging with neighbours — sometimes voluntarily, sometimes under pressure from ICBs managing contract hand-backs. The average practice list size has been growing steadily. More patients per practice, fewer practices in total.
GP federations — companies owned by and representing groups of GP practices — have grown from informal cooperatives into significant organisations. Some federations hold APMS contracts, run extended access services, employ salaried GPs across multiple sites, and bid for community health contracts. The largest federations manage populations of 200,000+.
Corporate providers (Centene/Operose, HCRG, AT Medics/Nimbuscare) hold a small but visible share of GP contracts through APMS. Their presence is controversial — GPs worry about profit extraction and clinical autonomy — but they've demonstrated the ability to manage practices that traditional partnerships couldn't sustain.
Vertically integrated models — where primary care, community health, and sometimes secondary care are managed by a single organisation — exist in pockets. These blur the traditional boundaries between GP practice and NHS trust.
What scale gets right
Shared back office. Finance, HR, IT, CQC compliance, and estates management are expensive fixed costs for small practices. Sharing them across 5–10 practices through a federation or merger reduces the per-practice burden and improves quality (a dedicated HR manager across 8 practices is better than a partner doing HR part-time at each one).
Workforce flexibility. A federation that employs 30 GPs can cover sickness, maternity, and leave internally rather than relying on locum agencies. Staff can rotate between sites, develop special interests, and access training that a single practice couldn't fund.
Negotiating power. A federation representing 100,000 patients has more leverage in commissioning discussions than a single practice with 8,000. This matters for enhanced service contracts, premises development, and service redesign.
Resilience. Small practices are fragile. One partner leaving, one long-term sick absence, or one failed CQC inspection can threaten viability. Larger organisations absorb shocks better.
What scale gets wrong
Loss of autonomy. The thing GPs value most — clinical and organisational autonomy — is the first casualty of scale. In a federation or super-practice, decisions about appointment lengths, staffing models, clinical protocols, and resource allocation are made centrally. For GPs who entered the profession for independence, this feels like becoming an employee in all but name.
Loss of continuity. Small practices deliver better relational continuity — patients see the same doctor repeatedly, building therapeutic relationships that improve outcomes (the evidence for this is strong). Scale tends to erode continuity because workforce flexibility means rotation between sites.
Bureaucratic layering. Federations create management structures: federation boards, clinical governance committees, HR processes, corporate policies. For GPs accustomed to decisions being made in a 10-minute partners' meeting, the governance overhead of a large organisation feels alien and slow.
Profit extraction risk. In corporate-held APMS contracts, the contractual obligation is to deliver services that meet contractual standards — not to reinvest profits in patient care. The concern isn't that corporate providers are necessarily worse; it's that their incentive structure prioritises shareholder returns alongside (not above) clinical quality. Traditional partnerships reinvest profits through partner income, which is taxed personally — there's no mechanism for external profit extraction.
Culture homogenisation. Every GP practice has a culture — the way it handles difficult patients, the relationship between clinicians and admin staff, the unwritten norms that make it a good or bad place to work. Scale tends to standardise culture through corporate policies and shared protocols, which improves consistency but can flatten the distinctive characteristics that made individual practices work.
Where it's heading
The direction is clear even if the destination isn't: general practice will continue consolidating. List sizes will grow, practice numbers will shrink, and a larger proportion of GPs will work in federated or salaried models rather than traditional small partnerships.
The critical question is whether this consolidation is GP-led or imposed. GP-led federations — where the practices collectively own and govern the federation — have the best track record for maintaining clinical quality and professional satisfaction. Consolidation driven by contract failure, ICB pressure, or corporate acquisition tends to produce the worst outcomes for both GPs and patients.
For individual GPs, the implication is: understand what's happening in your area, engage with federation governance if your practices are part of one, and make career structure decisions (partnership vs salaried vs portfolio) with awareness of where local practice organisation is heading. The GP who joins a partnership without knowing that the practice is being approached about a merger is making a decision without critical information.
iatroX supports practices of all structures with AI-powered clinical search and NICE guidelines summaries. Built by a practising NHS GP.