- GPC is looking to set up some kind of emergency practice support fund to try and proactively avoid a crisis in a locality which may then result in a domino effect.
- the formula review group looking at the Carr-hill formula includes representatives from GPC but is in the very early stages of work. There is also a parallel work stream going on to look at atypical practices. This may be ready for 2017-18, but will be subject to review and agreement. Practices should not depend on the review from making any long-term decisions on funding.
- Workload and efficiencies: monitoring and quantifying GP workload is needed to help in negotiations and for our DDRB
- Gp networks: work continues to facilitate the development of GP networks including the development of the database of organisations
- in November there may be regional meetings as pilots of GPC and LMC’s meeting together. It will be interesting to see how this works
- premises: GPC is in the middle of negotiations about the Reformation of regulations. The standard lease is still a work in progress but should be ready soon. In the meantime practices should not sign any lease without checking with the LMC and their own independent legal advisers.
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Friday, March 27, 2015
We are seeking a six session Partner to replace a Partner who is relocating due to family circumstances, from 5 October 2015. Salaried positions with a view to Partnership would be considered. We are keen to introduce further dynamism into our established but forward thinking team. We are a friendly, well regarded, and high performing GMS Practice of 6,400 patients, served by 4 Partners (3FTE) from two surgeries, both of which have their own bean-to-cup coffee machines. Both premises are rented with no "buy-in" and prospect of major new development for main surgery in collaboration with neighbouring practice in the next 2-3 years. No extended hours.
Saturday, March 21, 2015
For East and West Sussex LMCs
Dr Russell Brown
19 March 2015
The GPC held its latest meeting today. In two parts, the morning was GPC proper with the afternoon being group sessions to discuss the future form and function of the GPC with particular reference to its relationships to LMCs. I discovered this week that in an uncontested election I was returned as your representative to GPC for another three years. I am delighted to be able to continue with this element of my work though I am always a little uneasy about uncontested elections. I have chosen to believe that you, my constituents, think I am doing a good enough job that you are happy to leave me to it and so would like to say thank you for your continuing supportive comments and feedback.
As usual, the first part of the meeting was a report from the Executive Team on recent meetings and negotiations. Much of this focused on the recently announced "pay rise" we have all been given, with a 1.16% increase in funding. It would be fair to say the formula for calculating expenses is pretty hopeless, a fact acknowledged by the DDRB. Work is ongoing to attempt to address the weaknesses of the calculations, as well as pension issues, given yesterday's Budget announcement reducing one's lifetime allowance cap further, which I suspect will catch a large number of GPs (eventually). Standard advice to seek independent financial advice from someone with expertise in the NHS pension scheme/s applies. The returners scheme is still causing problems all over the country, with one example cited of a GP from New Zealand, UK trained but a Fellow of the RCGPNZ who, because of the labyrinthine processes, is unable to start working for six months. Apparently he was advised by someone in NHSE that he could always go and do some locums in A&E while he was waiting!
Discussion was had about the results of the recent GP survey, which had a remarkable response rate. The results are likely to be published in the next few weeks and months but will I have no doubt strongly support GPC's position in discussions with Government. There have also been two patient events, where groups of patients have contributed ideas to what the future of General Practice should be. Results are currently a closely guarded secret but there are several common themes which will be described in due course with the survey results.
A discussion paper on future models of service provision which I had previously been involved in the writing of as Deputy Chair of the Commissioning and Services Development Subcommittee was discussed and will be developed further. GPC will be observing the progress of the 29 vanguard sites with a beady eye. I forget if I mentioned last month that, in Ancient Rome, the vanguard were traditionally slaughtered to a man. I offer this only as an observation on classicism.
A move towards demanding recognition of our craft as a Speciality in its own right is on the cards. Apart from Austria and Italy, we are alone in Europe in not being recognised as such, despite leading the world in the quality and breadth of the training and service we provide. The RCGP are partners in this with GPC, so perhaps news soon.
The afternoon session will hopefully result in a proposals paper being presented to the Annual Conference of LMCs, to be held in May. Fingers crossed.
No doubt the official GPC news will be published shortly. It will be available through the BMA Communities web site. Additionally, the most recent Sessional's newsletter has been published on the BMA website.
I hope you have found this report helpful. Please feedback so that I can ensure my reports are useful. Feel free to email me on firstname.lastname@example.org if you would like to comment or ask me anything. Comments can also be posted on my blog where this report will also be posted at www.thebrownstuff.blogspot.com
Dr Russell Brown
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
In my view, model C is a nightmare scenario for general practices. CCGs are membership organisations of GP practices. The conflicts of interest evident in model C are unbelievable, with a GP-led (apparently) organisation being responsible for the commissioning of general practice. How can we hold the board of our respective CCGs to account if they are responsible for decisions on investments into our practices? How is this process going to do anything other than create a wide-ranging postcode lottery of service provision? And that in turn risks significant repetitional damage to GPs, who may well be perceived by the public and the press as commissioning with their own self-interests at the fore-front of their minds. Disinvestment in and decommissioning of secondary care during service reconfigurations could inflame tensions between primary and secondary care, jeopardising service redesign and integration, with the perception of wide-ranging conflicts of interests paralysing the decision making processes and removing clinical input by devolving more and more decision making powers to lay members of boards.