This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

The docbot will see you now

Commissioners attempt to impose larger network after blocking GP proposals

London commissioners are trying to impose their preferred size of primary care network on practices after blocking initial proposals.

The South West London Alliance of CCGs said plans suggested by two proposed networks in Teddington and Hampton were 'not permissable' because they go against NHS England guidance that requires PCNs to serve at least 30,000 patients.

Instead, commissioners want to see practices create just one larger network, serving 62,000 patients.

But Dr Heather Bryan - who has been appointed to lead one of the networks as clinical director - said a larger network will 'ultimately be worse for patients'.

Practices in south west London's Teddington and Hampton initially submitted applications to form two PCNs serving around 30,000 people each, which would involve splitting the patient list of the two-branch Green and Fir Road Surgery in Richmond.

They also presented a second option that would keep the two-branch surgery intact - but would create one PCN serving just under 30,000 patients.

However, South West London Health and Care Partnership, a body including Richmond CCG and other local commissioners, has rejected both options, arguing they do not align with national guidance.

When the five-year GP contract was released in January, it was widely understood that a network would serve between 30,000 and 50,000 people.

Further NHS England guidance released last month revealed PCNs must serve 'a minimum population of 30,000'. It added that 'commissioners may "waive" the 30,000-minimum population requirement where a PCN serves a natural community which has a low population density across a large rural and remote area'.

The guidance also states 'a GP practice that holds a single primary medical services (PMS) contract will only be able to hold one Network Contract DES as a variation to the core contract, regardless of whether or not the single practice has multiple sites spanning large areas and/or CCG boundaries'.

In a letter sent to Richmond CCG's primary care commissioning committee by South West London Alliance of CCGs, the alliance's director of commissioning operations, Jonathan Bates, said the proposals put forward by the proposed Teddington and Hampton networks were 'not permissable,' based on the guidance.

Mr Bates wrote: 'The panel did not feel that there was sufficient exceptionality to agree below the 30,000 thresholds as set out by NHSE. We note NHSE nationally may look to soften the absolute 30,000 threshold marginally, to allow a margin of approximately 1% (or 29,700). The prospective Teddington PCN would fall materially short of this at 27,088.'

In response, two of the alliance's CCGs - Kingston and Richmond - presented two alternative PCN structures, including 'a large consolidated PCN footprint covering Teddington and Hampton with a 62,000-population'.

Mr Bates said: 'The panel are of the opinion that the option presented to them of having one larger PCN of 62,000 registered patients would best serve the patients and would potentially achieve the desired outcome of the practices through the creation of two neighbourhood teams.'

But one of the network's clinical directors, Dr Heather Bryan, has warned against the bigger network.

She said: 'The prospect of forming a large 62K+ PCN is, of course, precisely the situation we feared we would be forced into and were working hard to avoid. This would make Teddington & Hampton disproportionately large with respect to the other Richmond PCNs, all of which were arranged in collaboration with each other to keep a consistent size and feel for practices and our patient populations.'

She added: 'Denying the options for smaller Teddington and Hampton networks will ultimately be worse for patients, who will be less likely to benefit from geographically sensible, locally arranged services as they evolve.

'Asking a single network to subdivide itself into "neighbourhoods" is not impossible to imagine, but not what we were originally tasked with, and presents a frustrating, additional barrier to rational arrangements as a new PCN, entailing considerable further expense and time resource.'

A Richmond CCG spokesperson said: 'We are in discussions with the applicants for the Teddington and Hampton primary care networks to ensure we meet the requirements of the NHS England guidance. We are working to find a local resolution.

'In south west London applications for primary care networks are being considered by a joint panel made up of lay members, primary care representatives and the local medical committee.'

Pulse previously reported that some CCGs have refused to approve networks where practices who submitted applications did not welcome an unwanted practice - described previously by the RCGP chair as 'pariah' practices.

It has also emerged that CCGs in some areas of England had been trying to 'manipulate' the formation of networks to align with their plans, according to GP leaders.

Meanwhile, some practices have 'hurriedly' designed their networks in light of the looming deadline.

Readers' comments (11)

  • What's with the font on this article?!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This is happening through out the country more top down orders to obey!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • what complete and utter wankers at the CCG.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Just say no

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Long term, for our professional freedom, we should break free and avoid others telling us what to do. The BMA should help us go the dentist/lawyers way. Gaining back control over one's freedom and life is priceless. It avoids all these BS.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Refuse to sign up and boot it upstairs to NHSE's national team for resolution. They are likely to be more sensible and pragmatic. Two functional PCNs - even if one is smaller than 30K - are better than one larger dysfunctional one.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • So if a network is understood to be between 30,000 and 50,000 pts As quoted above,then @62,000 is a lot further away from that range than 27000. Can’t help feeling this story could just as easily be ‘Commissioners block application to form 62000 pt network because it’s too big for the guidelines’

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • don't sign the contracts at all - they are a bad deal - you don;'t have to sign, it will cost you dear and dump you with the OOH responsibility at the end of it with no guarantee of any extra funding after 5 years, it will fall apart, the network will then be sold to a private company and patient services will be cut drastically. your are bonkers to sign

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • d in vadar | Locum GP14 Jun 2019 3:34pm

    don't sign the contracts at all - they are a bad deal - you don;'t have to sign, it will cost you dear and dump you with the OOH responsibility at the end of it with no guarantee of any extra funding after 5 years, it will fall apart, the network will then be sold to a private company and patient services will be cut drastically. your are bonkers to sign

    -----
    Think you're right about the schemes going on at NHSE but if there is any attempt to dump OOH back on GPs, everyone will simply withdraw from the DES.

    For my practice at under 6,000 patients it's worth 8k net (figuring in the partially recycled money from extended hours) and a 3 sessions pharmacist.

    Nice, but hardly a massive amount of help, and therefore it can be dumped if needed.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • They must have a strong Federation sitting as scavengers in the wings with links to the local LMCs and CCGs.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page

Have your say