Question to the Department of Health and Social Care:

To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, how many full-time general practice staff were (a) male and (b) female in (i) 2020, (ii) 2015, (iii) 2010, (iv) 2005, (v) 2000 and (vi) 1995.

The table below shows the number of full-time general practice staff who were male and female in September 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020. Data is not broken down by gender for all practice staff for 2000 and 1995.

Source: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/general-and-personal-medical-services

Notes

1. Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) refers to the proportion of full-time contracted hours that the post holder is contracted to work. 1 would indicate they work a full set of hours (37.5), 0.5 that they worked half time. For GPs in Training Grades’ contracts 1 FTE = 40 hours and in this table these FTEs have been converted to the standard wMDS measure of 1 FTE = 37.5 hours for consistency.

1. Figures shown do not include staff working in prisons, army bases, educational establishments, specialist care centres including drug rehabilitation centres, walk-in centres and other alternative settings outside of traditional general practice such as urgent treatment centres and minor injury units.
2. Data from September 2015 onwards was collected using a new methodology and should therefore not be directly compared with data from before September 2015. Figures from September 2015 should be treated with caution as the data submission rates under the new methodology from practices were appreciably lower than for subsequent reporting periods. This means that the reported figures for the early years of the collection may be lower than the true picture. In September 2015, which was the first extract from the new Workforce Minimum Data Set, only three of four Health Education England regions submitted data.
3. It is not recommended that comparisons be made between quarterly or monthly figures (e.g. Mar 16 to Sept 16) due to the unknown effect of seasonality on workforce numbers. Any such comparisons should therefore be treated with extreme caution.
4. Figures from earlier collections (September 2005 to September 2015) should be treated with caution as the data submission rates from practices were appreciably lower than for subsequent reporting periods. This means that the reported figures for the early years of the collection may be lower than the true picture.