Agenda item

The Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group (LCCCG) submits a report which provides an update on progress and the next steps in delivering the General Practice Forward View (GPFV) in Leicester City. The GPFV sets out the national plan to improve general practice and contains specific, practical and funded steps about how investment, workforce, workload, infrastructure and care redesign will be supported. 

The Commission is asked to consider and comment on the report as it sees fit.

A report on delivering the General Practice Forward View in Leicester was presented by Mr Richard Morris, Director of Operations and Corporate Affairs, Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group (LCCCG) and Professor Farooqi, Chair and Diabetes Clinical Lead for LCCCG. Members heard about the pressure that General Practitioners (GPs) were under and that demand for their services in recent years had risen exponentially.  Members heard that one of the biggest challenges faced was the Primary Care workforce; the CCG were trying hard to resolve this and were having discussions as to what else they could do.

During the ensuing discussion, comments made included the following:

·      It was noted that other levels of practitioners were being offered at GP surgeries; for example, people could see nurses or pharmacists but there were issues around managing patients’ expectations.

·      The Commission had previously noted with concern the stress levels of GPs.

·      Members heard that GPs were now being taxed on their pension fund once a certain level had been reached and therefore some were opting to retire early. Discussions were taking place on this issue, but it was a decision made by the Treasury.

·      It was noted that practice receptionists were being trained to offer alternatives to a GP appointment and Members heard that a considerable amount of work was taking place to train staff so that they would know who to signpost patients to. Members stressed the importance of the way frontline staff dealt with members of the public.

·      Further to Members’ questions about Primary care networks, the meeting heard that the networks consisted of approximately three or four practices, mostly in a geographical area, which worked together. One practice might employ a medical professional to provide a specialist service which patients in other practices in the network could access if their own practice did not provide that service. The CCGs would still be the commissioner and have the responsibility to ensure the quality of service that was being delivered. People would still be registered with their own GP so if they had cause to complain, their complaint would most probably be submitted to their GP.

·      In response to a suggestion that pharmacists should be more actively involved, in order the ease the pressure on GPs, Members heard that NHS England commissioned pharmacists, and therefore CCGs could not align pharmacists with GPs.

·      In response to a concern raised about the Merlyn Vaz Centre, Mr Morris responded that the CCG had heard that walk-in patients had been turned away. He said that this should not have happened, and the CCG had held detailed and robust conversations with the centre. Since then the situation had improved.

·      A Member asked whether any work was being carried out to change people’s attitude to accept that they might not always need to see a doctor or a pharmacist. Professor Farooqi responded that he thought the situation was improving and people were becoming more resilient, but there was a need to give people the skills so that they could self-manage. NHS England were putting investment into this area in the recognition that more work was needed in this area, including the teaching of children about health issues. Work was also ongoing to help first time parents.

·      Members heard that the Government were funding a scheme for on-line consultations and it was expected that this would be something that more GPs would be offering this year.

·      A question was asked as to how the less well-off practices could be protected from having their healthier / younger patients being enticed away. It was noted that some patients used an on-line GP service and Mr Morris explained that people did not always realise that when they used an on-line GP service they were transferring their registration from their usual GP. On-line GPs would not generally provide all the services offered by a regular GP.

The Chair drew the discussion to a close and invited Members to note the report.

AGREED:

                   that the report be noted.