This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Capita GP support contract 'potentially compromised patient safety', find auditors

The National Audit Office has said NHS England's decision to outsource primary care support services to Capita 'potentially compromised patient safety', and has instructed it to consider taking services back in house.

Pulse has reported on GPs suffering severe disruptions to services - including with payments, pensions, performers list registrations, records movement and medical supplies - since the contract was awarded in 2015.

Now, the NAO has recommended that Capita and NHS England should put any further changes to support services on the back foot whilst stabilising current delivery, as primary care practitioners are still experiencing ‘widespread failures’.

The same report revealed that Capita has made losses of £125m to date from the contract, while NHS England has saved £60m.

The seven-year, £330m contract to provide services including GP payments, National Performers List updates, administering of GP pensions and patient record movements, was awarded to Capita after a tender process in 2015.

Key findings of the NAO report

  • NHS England’s decision to hand a contract to Capita both to run existing services and also simultaneously to transform those services, was ‘high risk’.
  • NHS England did not have sufficient knowledge the amount of work related to primary care support services to set Capita achievable targets (at the time it was handled by 1,650 staff in 47 local offices).
  • Both Capita and NHS England ‘underestimated’ the scale and nature of the task of transforming the service.
  • Capita was incentivised through the contract to close existing services to minimise its losses.
  • NHS England has made £60m in savings in the first two years of the contract - broadly in line with targets.
  • Capita has made losses of £125m in the same period, more than the £64m it anticipated.
  • NHS England’s assessment of the contract risk focused on the likelihood of it failing to achieve its financial savings target and did not adequately assess the risk of Capita being unable to provide the service to a good standard.
  • NHS England has fined Capita £5.3m for poor performance, and expects to pay £3m to primary care providers in compensation.
  • Practitioners are still experiencing 'widespread failures', with key concerns including Capita’s management of the National Performers List, GP pensions and payments.

Failings affecting GPs, many of which were first revealed by Pulse, included issues with moving medical records between practices as well as delayed processing of updates to the National Performers List.

The latter resulted in GPs being unable to work, with associated lost earnings, and the NAO report said it also 'potentially compromised patient safety in cases where practitioners should have been removed'.

The NAO now recommends that NHS England 'determine whether all current services within the PCSE contract are best delivered through that contract or whether some should be taken in-house'.

It also said the parties should now 'prioritise the stabilisation of existing services' and, when it did continue service changes, it should listen to feedback from primary care providers, pilot significant changes and create 'a joint risk register'.

The report said: 'The lack of stability in delivering existing services was in part caused by premature site closures and the push to secure savings from transformation.

'NHS England should carefully consider the operational readiness of each service before agreeing to the implementation of any further transformation changes.'

Public Accounts Committee chair Meg Hillier said: 'Trying to slash costs by more than a third at the same time as implementing a raft of modernisation measures was over-ambitious, disruptive for thousands of doctors, dentists, opticians and pharmacists and potentially put patients at risk of serious harm.

'Neither NHS England nor Capita properly understood the scale of the challenge before agreeing the contract and are still in dispute over future payments.

'Yet again this is poor contracting by Government with one of its major suppliers and it must learn lessons.'

An NHS England spokesperson said: 'While not without its difficulties, by making this change over the past two years the NHS has successfully saved taxpayers £60m, as the NAO themselves confirm.

'This £60m in lower administrative cost has all been successfully reinvested in frontline NHS patient care, and has helped fund the equivalent of an extra 30,000 operations.'

The BMA’s GP Committee has written to NHS England’s chief executive Simon Stevens today to demand that he sets out an action plan for resolving the issues.

GPC chair Dr Richard Vautrey said: 'While NHS England may have hit its financial targets, the two years of chaos experienced in practices up and down the country by both patients and GPs – whether this is to do with records, supplies or payments – sits completely at odds with this definition of "success". It’s GPs and patients who have paid the price for this.'

He added: 'For the last two years the BMA has repeatedly pressured NHS England to urgently address the problems with PCSE delivery, and now that the NAO have so clearly backed our concerns we hope this assessment of its failures will finally make NHS England and government sit up, listen and act.'

What Capita says

'As today’s NAO report concludes, the complexity of the support services being let by NHS England was not fully understood when the contract was signed. 

'The report notes that several organisations and legacy issues all contributed to underperformance. It has been acknowledged that performance has improved and Capita will continue to work with all parties to address the remaining service issues. We have accepted accountability for not meeting our high standards of service previously.

'Our new chief executive has made it clear that Capita previously has taken on some contracts that contained too many unknowns. Our new strategy will ensure we focus on doing fewer things better and securing business that we know can be delivered well.'

Readers' comments (9)

  • But that money hasn’t lead to more operations has it? They’ve been getting cancelled with massive waiting lists. And the £60 million you’ve saved has “put patients at risk of serious harm” not to mention contributed to the exodus of GP’s that we’re seeing. So, let’s see the people who made the decision get severely punished and take those services back in house and run them properly

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I wonder how long it is going to take them to process my application to leave the NHS pension scheme? - 2 months so far and not a dickie bird.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Join the que....roll the dice back and see that the 10 minutes consultation compromises patient safety and care.Fact.

    But who wants to rock the gravy train when its so relatively cheap to run such a service!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Seriously. Who takes on a contract when they don’t know what it will involve? Anyone? No?
    We were asked as GPs whether we wanted to take on extra sessions staffing community step up beds. First question was how much ? So we could assess whether it was worth it for the practice to sacrifice the time. It’s basics!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I agree with Northwestdoc

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • MyBad

    ‘NHS England’s assessment of the contract risk focused on the likelihood of it failing to achieve its financial savings target and did not adequately assess the risk of Capita being unable to provide the service to a good standard.’ i.e. not interested in wether the services would be carried out adequately, simply how much money they think they could save. And please why the ‘potentially’ prefix? It simply ‘has’ compromised patient safety, there’s no ‘potentially’ about it. Can someone sue NHS England for incompetence please. Who exactly IS responsible for the appalling service they have provided the tax payer. How exactly are these people being held to account? Who signed off the Capita contract? What is the name of the individual who heads the department who agreed the contract? Perhaps PULSE could find out. Are these people completely anonymous? How much are they paid to perform to such a shocking low standard? Are they appraised? Why are they in a job they quite obviously aren’t up to performing? Whilst we are monitored and micromanaged to almost extinction these fools screw up on an epic scale and quietly go about their jobs like no one will notice. Typical NHS administrative incompetence, and it’s only front line staff, tax payer and patients who end up carrying the can.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    You see
    Time and history have become the judge of Health & Social Act (particularly section 75) . We saw the devastation and desolation it can cause from day one.
    ‘Cheaper the better’ had worked for NHSE for saving this £60 million at all costs to us. We are clearly expendable in the eyes of this government and no wonder that many GP colleagues have left . You don’t pay us any respect, why should we carry on for you??
    As I wrote many times before, the historic sin committed by Lord Vader cannot be repaid by him dying ten thousand times. One might be willing to just give a bit of sympathy to Nick when he said ‘ Live by the sword and die by the sword’ when he was defeated in last general election......

    ‘’Useless laws weaken the necessary laws.’’
    Montesquieu

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    From another angle , the so called pro-business policies of the government had ironically set up ‘traps’ for all these private companies to overbid . They ended up making a big loss of profit . The services provided were substandard . The companies are at risk of folding up . Carillion was dead ; Caprica is probably hanging by a thread . Look at the story of the Rail Services on the East Coast Mainline being brought under the government control : Stagecoach and Virgin overbid under the same pattern .
    End of the day , nobody is happy (except NHS England in this story!). Yes , the government might have sucked some money from these ‘greedy’ companies to balance its book .Choice between the two evils , I would rather to raise tax on companies to achieve the ‘goal’......

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Vinci Ho

    Correction
    Capita is probably hanging by a thread .

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say