This site is intended for health professionals only

At the heart of general practice since 1960

Read the latest issue online

A faulty production line

CQC says GPs should be more involved in end-of-life care

The chief inspector of primary care has indicated that GPs could ‘do better’ when dealing with end-of-life care.

Discussing the issue at the CQC’s Board meeting yesterday, Professor Steve Field who is chief inspector of general practice, said that GPs were integral to end-of-life care and were involved across the board.

But Professor Field said ‘we could do better as we move forward’.

He suggested that more could be done to ensure that GPs were the essential link between practices, hospices and hospitals for patients approaching the end of their lives.

Professor Field’s comments come as end-of-life care hit the headlines in a damning report by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman earlier this week.

‘Dying Without Dignity’ revealed several examples of where patients and their families had negative experiences at the end of their life due to such things as poor communication, a lack of out-of-hours support and a lack of recognition that the person was dying.

In the same meeting, chief executive David Behan told the CQC Board that, as of 8 May, 826 GP inspection reports had been published, with 25 rated outstanding, 678 rated good, 92 requiring improvement and 31 rated inadequate.

It comes the day after GPC called for the CQC inspection ratings to be abolished.

Readers' comments (22)

  • Another piece of cloud cuckoo obvious predictably impractical tosh from a 20 per cent full time academic who most grass roots go would like to resign from the ludicrous delusional quango that needs to be abolished
    Then the prof could help real patients and the cqc funding could be used to genuinely improve care rather than waste the time of and irritate the 😖out of real gps as opposed to those obsessed with their own self advancement.
    Sorry but 95 per cent of real gps looking after real patients feel the same
    And personally I am incandescent with anger at the ignorant arrogance of those who either do not do the job or who just play at it saying gps should do this that or the other
    How utterly disgraceful to criticise colleagues about their palliative care
    That is an insult that makes me furious
    A period of silence from certain academics would now be most welcome

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Thanks @10.03pm
    From one among the 95%

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Well, I can completely understand where prof field is coming from.

    After all, CQC is heavily involved in end of primary care's life.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • We do over 75 % of all face to face NHS consultations on 6% of the budget, here in NI.We see over 45 patients a day in 10-12 hours. But, of course, it is never enough.
    Never enough for the Obese or Diabetes or Asthma or Hypertension or COPD or Dementia and so on and on.
    It is never enough.
    But it is our own stupid fault, because we do not, as doctors ever define what enough is. What is safe practice ? how many should I see in a day ? how many consultations,blood tests,letters and on and on.
    I am glad to see some thinking on payment per item mixed in with block Contracts.
    Till we define safety in numbers per day, we will NEVER EVER do enough.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Jmd

    I feel we need a mature debate. I agree the statement by Prof.- we can do more! However, whatever we gps do has to be under the umbrella of safe practice.
    I have been in GP long enough to recognise the ever increasing workload and tick box exercise is becoming to a rate limiting point where safe practice is becoming an issue. We really need more GPs and defined working hrs to provide a safe proactive service to our patients and they deserve it.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Could do better? Right back at ya Prof, your clipboard wielding army could certainly do a lot better. Imagine if they were all seeing patients rather than checking whether my reception staff know what a tiger stripe refuse sack is used for ( aside from suffocating anyone who asks).

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Payment by contract means privatisation
    Think about it
    What ever we do it will fail , we are set up to fail sadly
    Call it Doom and gloom but the facts are the facts
    Let's see hmm who do you think will really benefit in the long term , it's the insurance agencies .
    I have heard unofficially in a bar in international air space about an example of one company called United health checking Dr and scrutinising Each and every step , and along with I have heard the UK insurance providers thinking about employing Drs to work for them and guess where this will lead
    The above is an opinion of people whom I overheard as they were speaking loudly in international airspace and any resemblance to anything fictional or non fictional is purely coincidental

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Bit of a coincidence Simon Stevens head of NHSE worked for United Health so will be here soon.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been removed by the moderator.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Our contract values hundreds of useless avoiding hospital admissions care plans over actually seeing the palliative care patients as identified by primary care.
    Pitty the good prof offered no evidence as to what GPs aren't doing that he thinks we should be doing - all GPs I know value palliative care, particularly as it's one area where tick boxing and clipboards haven't taken over in our area.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 results per page20 results per page50 results per page

Have your say