Agenda item

To receive a presentation by Dr Chitra Sankaran (GP) regarding consultation on the draft strategy. Please find a covering letter and slides attached.

RECEIVED a covering letter and slides, plus an executive summary circulated to members.

NOTED the introduction by Dr Mo Abedi, advising that the five NCL CCGs were tasked to engage with key stakeholders and that comments on the draft strategy were requested by 28 September. The final strategy was due to be submitted to the CCG governing body in November.

IN RESPONSE comments and questions included:

1.  The document was welcomed, and it was important that the strategy for General Practice was refreshed from time to time, particularly in this situation of considerable change and of population churn, rising population, and decreasing assets. However, there was a disappointing lack of information regarding Enfield specifically. The general focus was on the whole STP NCL area, but Board members would like to know more about issues in Enfield in particular. The document seemed to give more detail on other boroughs on some aspects, and there should be parity of presentation.

2.  It was acknowledged there was a shortage of GPs in NCL, but Board members would like to know how many GPs Enfield was short of. Similarly, there was information about poor GP premises and single-handed practices, but members would like to know how many such practices there were in Enfield.

3.  Board members would like to see more detail in respect of the estates plan, and felt that GPs should be working with Trusts over estates.

4.  It was rightly stated that appointments were offered between 8am – 8pm, seven days a week, but it was a greater concern to people in Enfield that they could not always get through to GP surgeries by phone, and when they did, they could not get an appointment for a long time. Patients were told they could go to hubs, but the difficulties of travel for patients should be factored in, and changes should not be made to services without adequate consultation about transport, and recognition of the problems with access that could arise.

5.  The draft strategy contained no realistic or persuasive solution to the key issue of GP shortages.

6.  Mention was made of new and alternative employment models for GPs, but it would be useful to give examples, and to show how outcomes would be achieved. Information was lacking about how to grow the workforce, and by when.

7.  More could be done to reflect how primary care looks to, and is experienced by patients, especially those in deprived areas.

8.  There were concerns about how the strategy was presented in the document. Information should be presented about each borough (as is the case in many NCL documents). There were too many words and small print. Some issues and strategies would be consistent across the area, but there was a need to analyse the differences in each borough, and what was going to be done to meet borough-specific issues. The tone of the language was inconsistent across the document.

9.  There appeared to be an expectation that patients would do things differently, but more information was needed about the necessary messaging and how this behaviour change would be achieved.

10.  There was mention of private companies in relation to Estates, but their role in the future strategy was not clear.

11.  The Board would welcome consideration of equality issues and their implications for the strategy.

12.  There was insufficient information and data in respect of the vision and strategy for General Practice in Enfield for the Health and Wellbeing Board to give full support to the document.

AGREED that the points made by Health and Wellbeing Board would be included in a formal letter of response to the consultation.