The history of the Oxford general-practitioner/nursing-staff attachment scheme is briefly recorded from the first experimental full-time attachment of a health visitor to a partnership of three in November 1956 to the complete attachment of all nursing staff by 4 March 1965. For the past three years every practice, large and small, has hed at least one health visitor, one district nurse, and one midwife, either full-time or parttime according to its need. The concept of the general practitioner as leader of the domiciliary team is working actively in practice throughout the whole city, to the advantage of patients, doctors, and nurses. It is believed that Oxford is still the only local health authority to have a complete attachment scheme, so that an account of our experience may be of interest to others. Materials Available Oxford, which is very much an industrial centre as well as a university city, had a population of 104,500 at the commencement of the scheme in 1956, and this has increased only slightly to 109,320 in 1965 when the scheme was completed. The city is divided longitudinally by the rivers Cherwell and Isis, and practices, on the whole, tend to concentrate on one side or the other. At the beginning of the scheme there were 32 practices, comprising 68 doctors, of whom 14 were in single-handed practice, seven had two partners, nine had three, two had four, and one had five partners. The nursing staff establishment, which remained static throughout the scheme, comprised 19 health visitors, 21 district nurses, and 10 midwives. This gives a ratio of one health visitor to 3.6 doctors, one district nurse to 3.4 doctors, and one midwife to 6.8 doctors. It also means that there is one health visitor to 5,700 population, one district nurse to 5,200 population, and one midwife to 10,900 population. Methods Concept Membership of the health visitors working party emphasized the conclusion already reached by me that the future of health visitors lay in working in the closest possible relation with general practitioners. All the recognized means of achieving cooperation , including liaison schemes, had already been tried in Oxford, but in spite of great goodwill they were largely ineffective. General practitioners just did not understand the work of health visitors, and it was felt that they never would until both were responsible for the same patients and met