Friday, May 24, 2013

LMC Conference 2013 - Day 2

Here is a brief summary of my version of events. As yesterday, its intended audience is my constituent GPs in Sussex and it is not intended to be a detailed account of proceedings.

 

An hour of networking again to start with resulted in a read-through of the Hunt speech - which says not very much at all. Even the announcement of a Chief Inspector fails to be specific. This could be an opportunity for us to seize the initiative and put forward our vision of General Practice. There is a work stream going on at GPC but it would be most useful to hear from constituents if you have a wish list. I have one, but you may modify it! I hope to have news of sorts after June's GPC meeting.

 

Conference deplores the destabilising effect of MPIG changes, though the situation is complex. This is something that GPC is already keeping an eye on. Hopefully outliers who are heavily dependent on MPIG will be looked at by NHS England, which as far as I know does not include many or possibly any practices in the Confederation do SSLMCs. I understand the office is in the process of finding that info out.

 

A fairer funding formula is coming, Conference feels its introduction should be accelerated but made the point that any resources redirected from practices must stay within the envelope of GP funding. The cost effective nature of General Practice was emphasised, a Motion very popular with Conference. The Governments persistent failure to walk the walk and fund General Practice such that we can deliver everything they wish us to, which we could (though not "us" but we could organise it), is persistently and consistently disappointing.

 

A UK-wide contract is the only way to ensure equity of health provision, a reiteration of past statements but now it is also Conference policy. This will be helpful in the future during negotiations, though it is already emphasised by our negotiators. However, given we essentially have four Departments of Health, each with slightly individual plans, is this sustainable? We will see, I hope it is.

 

A disappointing 10 minutes was allocated to the vexing issue of Premises and the transfer of leases etc to PropCo (more properly NHS Property Services Ltd). There was brief discussion about the effect on practices and Conference agreed that there is still much to be concerned about. Personally, I was disappointed there were no motions on General Practice premises INVESTMENT.

 

A proposal to tightly define core services was popular though ultimately lost and in my view core services are already adequately defined in our contracts. Defining specific things we do risks allowing more salami slicing and farming off of work to others. Have a look at your contract under Essential or Additional services, which will tell you what you must do. Anything else should be adequately resourced. On the other hand, the ability to place sanctions (fines in other words) on persistent DNAers was less popular and also lost (thank goodness). The are other ways to deal with this problem. Occupational health issues are of concern and Conference decided to push for more consistency.


A half hour session for Q&A for the negotiating team from the floor covered a wide range of issues. As I alluded to yesterday, there will be an election for the neg team in July. Whether this will result in a change of nuance remains to be seen.

On day 2 there is a half hour "Soapbox" session, where speakers can speak for 1 minute on any matter they like. The topics are always many and varied.


Motions about GPC are always fiery. Despite criticism of communications, which have and are improving, the only demand that was made was that GPC should have its own website. Much was made of the frankly bizarre situation of lack of female representation on GPC. It is difficult to know how this could change given that, arguably, the electoral processes are already on a merit basis. However the motion called for an examination of ways to change matters and was passed. Unfortunately, this work is already ongoing but is being led, inevitably, by the BMA and so is likely to result in changes around the time I am currently planning on retiring in 2030. I just wish more women would actually stand. Finally a motion was passed to set up a training program for younger doctors to facilitate the development of future medical politicians.


After lunch, we discovered one of our colleagues from K&R, Richard van Mallaerts, had been elected as a newbie to GPC from Conference. Having spoken to him at length in the last two days, he will be an asset to the whole profession, at least for the next 12 months...


IM&T issues which were raised included concerns abut the risks of online accessible medical records, data extraction from records and data sharing.


The is a bit of a gap in my awareness of proceedings in the period after IM&T as I was busy trying to figure out the best way to respond to the major debate items. This involved discussion with several colleagues from a variety of LMCs as well as some GPC colleagues. A strategy was agreed upon....


The Major Debate covering mainly the return of OOH was noisy but the message was clear: that our constituents do not want it back. The motion suggesting we take back responsibility fell, so existing policy stands: that we do not take it back. Another motion expressing no confidence in Jeremy Hunt, which in my view is pointless posturing that actually might make it difficult for our negotiating team to engage with the other side, was lost. The other motion in the major debate agreed that GPs are working so hard on guff that it is all getting in the way of "the patient's agenda", which passed.


The end of the second day is always slow, especially after an exciting major debate. I missed most of the last half hour as I was grabbed by Pulse regarding the survey I had sent out to constituents on the OOH issue.


Next year's conference is to be held in York I understand. Next GPC is on 20 June, so more from me then.

7 comments:

Ian Falconer said...

I think you're way off the mark re vote of no confidence in JH. The wider profession and the country at large need to know what we think of the liar and cheat that is our esteemed leader

Nick said...

He's not there to serve us, so whether we have confidence in him is neither here nor there. The fact that he's a manipulating devious toad like so many of his westminster colleagues is ditto. All that matters is that there is a Health Secretary in position, to receice 30,000 undated resignations when they try to hand back OOH

Fay W said...

Just an update as you got your wish on more women standing for election: eight did - a majority of the candidates - and three were elected to the seven places. So it's not true that women don't stand for election. What's happening in your patch?
Fay (DOI I was one of them)

Brendan O'Reilly said...

A motion was passed to train future medical politicians. I am stunned and cannot think of anything more wrong or whose effect is likely to be a disaster.

Russell Brown said...

Not too bad but we need more women, more sessionals. In the process of rewriting the LMC constitution. Might help, not sure yet.

Martin McCloskey said...

Congratulations, Fay.

The only sad thing about the election of three women to GPC was that they are all "experienced"

Experience is invaluable but it would have been nice to see the next generation coming through


Martin McCloskey, N Ireland

Landonq said...

I've enjoyed reading your notes from the conference. Thanks for the insider's info!