This site is intended for health professionals only
Wednesday 23 May 2012
Facebook Twiter Linkedin

CCGs start to tighten screw on GP referrals

By Edward Davie | 19 Oct 2011

Exclusive GPs in one clinical commissioning group (CCG) are being told to limit their referrals to as few as four a week amid concerns pressure to reduce hospital use is seeing some GP commissioners resort to unacceptable ‘micromanagement' of practices.

One of the country's leading GP commissioners warned there was a danger of general practice becoming a case of ‘them and us' after a Pulse investigation found a series of controversial referral restrictions by CCGs.

A second CCG is restricting GPs' physiotherapy referrals, a third is embroiled in a row over limits on surgery for smokers and the obese, while another is implementing a balanced scorecard benchmarking referrals.

The restrictions emerged a week after GPC chair Dr Laurence Buckman warned some CCGs were implementing ‘untried and unacceptable measures to micromanage practices'.

In east London, Redbridge CCG has used PCT calculations to allocate practices an annual budget for first referrals, which practices have used to work out referral limits for each GP – in some cases an average of just four a week.

Dr Sarah Heyes, CCG clinical director and a GP in Wanstead, said: ‘Each practice has been allocated a fixed amount of money from which the price of a first referral is averaged out. Obviously cardiology is much more expensive than, say, dermatology, but we average it and then work out the number of referrals allowed per year per GP.

‘In our practice's case, it came up with the figure that I was allowed four referrals a week. To be honest, I had sleepless nights and was quite panicked, thinking it would restrict my practice as a GP.'

Dr Heyes said the target had not stopped her making necessary referrals and had made her ‘more aware of the numbers', while an NHS Redbridge spokesperson said the targets were ‘not a directive' and referring patients was always GPs' ‘clinical decision'.

But Dr Richard Vautrey, GPC deputy chair, said: ‘This type of simplistic idea of setting quotas at practice level is potentially very dangerous.

‘Every practice sees week-by-week variation in referrals, and to place limits on referrals in this way risks patients who really do need specialist care not being referred when they need to be, or at all.'

Meanwhile in Nottingham, Principia CCG has told GPs to refer to a physiotherapist only if patients have presented twice for the same condition at least six weeks apart. Nottinghamshire LMC chair Dr Greg Place said the restrictions, which also limit GPs to one physiotherapist referral a year per patient for each condition, had left him ‘narked': ‘I don't mind them giving me guidance but I do mind them telling me what to do, as is happening in this case.'

A Principia spokesperson said the restrictions had drawn no complaints from patients and were in accordance with national guidelines.

Elsewhere, East London City Alliance CCG in Tower Hamlets has rejected crude numerical limits to referrals, but is sending a balanced scorecard to GPs each week and is working on benchmarking referrals by clinical area. And in Hertfordshire, GPs warned CCG-backed restrictions on surgery for smokers and the obese had been implemented ‘shambolically'.

Dr Michael Dixon, NHS Alliance chair, said CCGs faced a ‘difficult task' in redesigning services cost-effectively: ‘This may bring them into conflict with GPs, but I'd be concerned if CCGs become regarded by GPs as "them" rather than "us".'

Dr David Stout, a director of the NHS Confederation, said these kind of protocols would become more common, with possible sanctions for those not complying.

‘It would all depend on the constitution of the CCG and what behaviour is expected by practises and then what measures are sanctioned for not fulfilling that. I suppose if a constitution allowed it a practice could be kicked out but that would be a pretty blunt instrument and would certainly be the nuclear option.'

READERS' COMMENTS

Anonymous, Practice Manager,
19 Oct 2011
And this is only the beginning, folks.
Average (1Vote)
Top
Here We Go Again, GP Partner,
19 Oct 2011
The beginning of the end I think.
Average (1Vote)
Top
Paul Joshi, GP,
19 Oct 2011
1984 anyone- the Pigs are better because they are not humans. I suppose when we reach a point that we see no difference between the pigs and humans it will be too late!.
Average (1Vote)
Top
Scott Jamieson, Other healthcare professional,
19 Oct 2011
Some steps need to be takien to reduce referrals but this is quite drastic. There are better ways to save money without compromising patient care.
Average (0Votes)
Top
Anonymous, Salaried GP,
19 Oct 2011
mapofmedicine.com

http://eng.mapofmedicine.com/evidence/map/low_back_pain1.html

please follow the pathway down. please now explain where it states that we should be delaying physiotherapy by at least 6 weeks?

also have they factored in that sometimes it can take a week or more to see the GP in the first instance.

Can they then factor in that once the referral has gone that we are now looking at up to 16 weeks to be seen by physio locally!

In the meantime how many UCC, WiC, ED, GP appointments are taken whilst the patient is waiting for the physiotherapist.

in the meantime, the patient is off work and his job is looking precarious once he actually gets back.

I really don't think that this is upstream thinking. If we check the map of medicine the the only way to get round this is to actually refer the patients to chronic pain clinics and to orthopaedics. Does this sound like a good use of resources?

- anonymous salaried!
Average (2Votes)
Top
Edoardo Cervoni, Private GP,
19 Oct 2011
I am not sure what CGS is assuming when restricting GPs' referrals the way it is doing. Sometime speaking openly such as saying: "look, we just cannot afford it, it is not a matter of rocket science behind our decision", it may help everybody to understand. That way, it could be also easier to tell patients how things really are, so that they can make an informed choice about the type of care the wish to receive. Fact is that anybody can see common sense in the above comments, And many other observations could be and will be made.
Rightly or wrongly, I am not a fan of physiotherapy. Believe me.
But, the way I see it is that while CGS grapple with cost containment, the legal and clinical risks posed by gatekeeping is potentially jeopardizing the health of patients and this is a consumer safety issue.
Furthermore, until it is proven that managed care providers can safely implement a gatekeeping policy, all patients should be assessed and referred as their GPs (whom have been appraised, revalidated, and who knows what next) feel to be most appropriate, and patients should be informed of potential risks associated with delayed care related to gatekeeper recommendations.
I heard this before: "UNTIL WE CAN SAY IT'S SAFE, WE SHOULDN'T BE DOING THIS".
Average (0Votes)
Top
subhash chandra Bhatt, GP Partner,
19 Oct 2011
I CAN SEE HEADLINE in 1 year stating restricting gp referral made no difference to total nhs budget. by not referring pct save money and trust loose money. i understand 20 trust has applied to govt to foot the shortfall.
hospital staff remains same weather u refer or not and they are paid same. i can not understand how you save overall budget
Average (0Votes)
Top
Anjana Temple, GP Partner,
19 Oct 2011
I dont actually mind this, as long as those who restrict my ability to refer take on the responsibility of litigation. Who will my patient sue when these admin / clinically inept doctors vet my referrals. as I said i welcome their input because surely when they veto my clinical judgement they are taking on all the stuff about terms of service and the responsibility. They are indeed welcome.
Average (4Votes)
Top
Qamar Siddiqi, GP Partner,
20 Oct 2011
Pure and simple abuse of human rights - The CCG gestapo may have been tasked to reduce waste that was overlooked by PCTs, but not to implement dangerous and unproven practice. I smell a whole load of trouble coming their way.
Average (1Vote)
Top
Anonymous, PCT,
20 Oct 2011
Anonymous, Salaried GP

Why does it take a week for the patient to get an appointment? Sounds to me like the practice needs to look at its own systems and ask if they think it is reasonable for patients to have to wait a week and the impact this has on ED, A&E, urgent care and WIC's
Average (2Votes)
Top
Tariq Hafez, GP Partner,
20 Oct 2011
As far as I am concerned, using PBR and activity based systems does not serve budgets. It encourages perverse incentives and gaming, and divides the profession. Why not have a block budget, that is within budget? Who thought up PBR, and who does it serve?
Average (1Vote)
Top

ADD YOUR COMMENTS

Please note You must be a registered user of PulseToday and logged in to add comments. Opinions expressed below are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of PulseToday. Comments are considered in the public domain and may be used in future Pulse coverage. We accept no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for the accuracy or the content of member comments.

Comment*

You must be logged in to add a comment.Clickhere to login.

SIGN UP FOR EMAIL NEWSLETTERS

Keep up-to-date with the latest changes to the NHS, CPD and clinical guidelines. Sign up below or find out more.

POLL

Is self-care the answer to the NHS efficiency drive? Read the full story here