Cookie policy notice

By continuing to use this site you agree to our cookies policy below:
Since 26 May 2011, the law now states that cookies on websites can ony be used with your specific consent. Cookies allow us to ensure that you enjoy the best browsing experience.

This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

‘The scheme presents us with a conflict of interest’

Dr Emma Rowley-Conwy, a GP in Lambeth, discusses the CCG’s scheme to financially reward practices for cutting the number of referrals

Dr emma rowley conwy 3000x2000px

I think that it is acceptable for CCGs to look at the processes behind referrals, and reward practices for focusing on that, like using peer review or using the right local pathways, such as a local GPSI clinic, and not the actual numbers.

Where the problems come in is if you looked at it purely as ‘we can’t refer this patient because we’ll exceed our target in a particular area’.

The CCG has made changes this year that look at overall referral numbers, which is better than focusing on an area such as ENT.

But emergency referrals and referrals for diagnostic tests are still included in the targets, as are two-week wait referrals. This is counter to other initiatives that encourage GPs to refer earlier for suspected cancer.

Our scheme does present us with a conflict of interest. As a practice we’ve managed that by focusing on the process by doing weekly peer reviews of all the routine referrals, instead of focusing on the referrals target.

If you explain that to patients in the right way, by saying ‘I’m going to review your case with my colleagues and determine what is the best pathway for you, and the best care’, then most patients see that as quite positive, less experienced GPs get the benefit of the combined experience of all the clinical team, and we maximise the use of local pathways.

Dr Emma Rowley-Conwy is a GP in Lambeth, London

Rate this article  (5 average user rating)

Click to rate

  • 1 star out of 5
  • 2 stars out of 5
  • 3 stars out of 5
  • 4 stars out of 5
  • 5 stars out of 5

0 out of 5 stars

Readers' comments (2)

  • Surely this war was lost long ago?

    For decades governments, GPs and healthcare bodies have deemed it acceptable that GP behaviour be shaped by financial incentives, from immunisation payments to QoF. And naturally this is intended to encourage behaviour which might be at odds with our professional preference, or else why would an incentive be needed?

    It's a bit late now to suddenly wake up to the ethical conflicts inherent in financial incentives!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • That is just as shameful as withholding the information altogether...it may look 'nicer' but it is not =use Dr Dates letter to honestly inform people of the situation re incentives = tell them of the wait for cancer referrals and see how much they trust your 'alternative pathways' get out.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

IMPORTANT: On Wednesday 7 December 2016, we implemented a new log in system, and if you have not updated your details you may experience difficulties logging in. Update your details here. Only GMC-registered doctors are able to comment on this site.