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

Sorry to disappoint, but RCGP isn't run by a cabal of government quislings

  • Print
  • Comments (39)
  • Rate
  • Save

With the passing of another week on social media comes another epidemic of College Dysmorphic Disorder: the fixed collective delusion,of those desperately seeking external validation of their decision to stop paying membership fees, that their former College, RCGP, is run by a shadowy cabal of Government quislings intent on bringing about the demise of UK General Practice, rather than being a group of well-meaning if occasionally misguided people who share the same propensity to human error as the general population.

This week, Helen Stokes-Lampard’s crime was to have the audacity to meet the Secretary of State for Health and – shock horror! – pose, smiling, for a photograph with him. In the feverish climate of GP social media, this was apparently tantamount to her serving him a three-course romantic meal on the rooftop terrace of 30 Euston Square then working through the Kama Sutra with him.

Don’t get me wrong: I recognise that RCGP isn’t perfect, and the College seems to have a knack for PR own-goals, from colouring books to discounts on caviar, Champagne and polo tickets. I understand that many members feel that the College is doing too little to help as workload spirals, indemnity costs soar, and the recruitment crisis means that many surgeries are chronically under-doctored. There are many GPs – particularly those outside of London, who are geographically as well as metaphorically remote from 30 Euston Square – who feel that the College does little other than running an expensive exam and distributing chocolate coins.

Given that most GPs would rather do a PR exam without gloves than be seen dead next to Jeremy Hunt - let alone sporting a broad smile – the picture of Stokes-Lampard was jarring. But for the many members that want their College to exert influence at the highest level, Jeremy Hunt coming to 30 Euston Square, the heart of general practice, and pretending to ‘heart GP’ was a publicity coup. How do the naysayers think Stokes-Lampard should be communicating with Hunt – via telepathy? Snapchat, perhaps? If we want RCGP to stand up for general gractice, its leaders need to lobby politicians, and inevitably that requires face-to-face meetings. If we want politicians to listen to GPs’ voices, we need our representatives to engage with them, building the kind of professional relationship which gets things done. Some social media pundits have suggested that Stokes-Lampard should have refused to pose for a photo, but what would that overt hostility have done to their working relationship?

April’s furore over ‘House of Lords-gate’ is another case in point. For years, exhausted, burnt-out GPs have been warning that their workload is unsustainable. The independent contractor model of general practice is nothing if not efficient. The buck stops with GP principals, who stand to lose their business and, potentially, their home if the surgery fails. Market forces are at work. Young doctors, faced with the prospect of 14-hour days and potential financial ruin, are increasingly choosing salaried or locum positions rather than the risks of partnership. Surgeries are merging and federating to escape the inefficiencies that face small businesses.

In this context, it hardly seems controversial that Stokes-Lampard told the House of Lords that the current model of General Practice is “not likely to be fit for the long-term future”. Yet, because it was her that said it, predictably she was torn to shreds on social media – without any hint of irony, by many of the same people who have been loudly forecasting the demise of the current model of general practice for years.

Stokes-Lampard is a shrewd political operator who has been holding high office since before she was on the GMC register – she has ascended rapidly from President of her medical school’s Students’ Union, to GP trainees’ representative on RCGP Council, to Honorary Treasurer and then Chair of Council – and I suspect she is well used to taking criticism. But her trial by social media illustrates a wider point – that in modern medical politics, it’s not what you say that matters, but who you are. And right now, there are a group of GPs who feel so angry and disillusioned by RCGP that they will reflexively attack anything the College says or does.

RCGP must reflect on this and try to learn from it. More could be done to ensure that grassroots GPs feel the College is listening to them. When the College makes policy on significant issues which will affect all GPs, why not consult the wider membership? A membership-wide consultation exercise was held to determine the RCGP’s policy on assisted dying – why not take the same approach to other major issues, like skill mix in primary care (do GPs really want to be supervising an army of physician’s assistants?) or whether general practice should stay within the NHS? Additionally, at present, draft papers are not made public until they have been approved by Council, which makes it difficult for the wider membership to enter into dialogue with their Council representatives prior to decisions being made. Although great strides have been made in opening the workings of RCGP Council up for greater scrutiny, and the recent advent of live-Tweeting captures some of the flavour of discussion, the minutes of Council are neither timely nor detailed, conveying little of the nuance of debate, so grassroots GPs cannot see why College reaches the positions it does.

I must declare an interest – I am on the RCGP’s Associates in Training Committee, sit on my local RCGP Faculty Board, and am in a relationship with a member of RCGP Council (who is an advocate of transparency), so I couldn’t be more of a ‘College person’ if I tried. I see myself as a ‘critical friend’ of RCGP and am involved with the College because I think it does a lot of good already and I want to work within it to make it better in future. And I fail to see how it is anything other than positive that the College is respected enough by Government to be able to invite Hunt to their headquarters and lobby him.

I understand that many grassroots GPs are angry, but let’s focus on the right target: the Secretary of State for Health who is starving Primary Care of resources, not the woman who happened to be photographed next to him while fighting for that to change.

Dr Heather Ryan is a GP registrar in Liverpool. You can follow her on Twitter @DrHFRyan and view any conflicts of interest here.

Rate this blog  (2.15 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 (39)

  • This comment has been removed by the moderator

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I think your conflict of interest is worth focusing on a little. Like many trainees there is a focus on the college as it is the lifeblood of your training. It holds the key to your career aims. I myself was much more pro RCGP when I was a trainee. You also seem to have continued ambition to further your advance within the college (to each their own). This does clearly colour your opinion of the college.

    Your time as a trainee has now almost ended and you will enter the workforce as an independent practitioner (less than full time wisely) in due course. I think you will be well aware that the importance of the college rapidly declines in relation to the nuts and bolts of actually surviving in GP world.

    When the college is no longer your master you tend to be more critical of its role and hence its public face. Its PR if you like. Here the RCGP has consistently been prone to targeting it's own and our feet with firearms.

    My note of caution would be that (as with all these establishments) they aim to create those in their own image, to further it's own existence and importance and (assumed) relevance. Its role is to train GPs essentially, its mission creep to other areas and its shockingly poor PR in doing so does it real harm.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • North of the Wall

    Sorry to disappoint but that reads more like a PR puff piece than a reasoned argument for NOT mocking HSL for grinning while standing next to the man at the top of the UK NHS GP hate list.

    Come on! If HSL is as media savvy as you propose then she MUST have known what would happen. By all means, have your photo with Jezza but don't, FFS, look as though you've just won Euromillions.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • This comment has been moderated

  • Tom, who signs off the shotgun licence for an entity that repeatedly shoots itself in the foot?

    The general theme of the article is trite. "Stop being mean" is an argument trotted out by an organisation that does not really seem to take on board criticism. You are obviously highly politically ambitious and keen to defend people you aspire to work for / with.

    I would like to see a loud and critical voice within RCGP that does not need to seek permission before voicing anything other than the party line. The cabal is one of 'yes men/women'.

    As someone that works outside the M25 the value of membership just does not exist. I don't need a cheap London hotel, I don't need to attend courses that would take my entire day just to commute to. RCGP needs to work out what it is and what it is not and stick to it (as do other organisations). Corporate hospitality, selling wealth management advice and / or taking on crayola should not be part of that.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The photo debacle no doubt occurred because
    Horrid Hunt's PR team arranged it and what a PR coup for Hunt it was too.
    Had the RCGP had the wit to employ a professional PR company, it would have intervened, or at very least advised Helen SL not to look pleased.
    Doctors are, by and large, pretty bad at PR, which is why we're in the s**t we are
    currently paddling in.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Heather makes a lot of good points. Yes, she is young, perhaps naive, but also unjaded by age-related cynicism and dejection. Ultimately, RCGP and BMA are still the most powerful conduits we have to change in positive directions, so by blanking them and withdrawing your support you also burn the most effective bridge we have, as a profession, to influence government and NHS direction- you ultimately sentence yourself the the very servitude you complained n about most.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I would also add that the obscene cost of maintaining "membership" after paying out thousands for the various parts of the basket weaving exams in return for seemingly nothing of any benefit does not help. Could someone please, in the name of transparency, explain why annual membership costs so much (a breakdown would be most welcome but I suspect it will remain secret) and why should I even consider paying it again? I quit years ago after qualifying because I don't live in London and newspaper is much cheaper than the journal to line the litter trays of my pets.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Tad disappointing that Pulse is removing and moderating comments without explanation. Mine was neither libellous nor offensive and not even rude or a personal attack but it was critical of the topic chosen.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Another "here's why you're all wrong" from Dr Heather Ryan, to add to "teaching time isn't a waste" (never said it was) and "we need to teach trainees to be partners" (already do).

    You extrapolate far too much from your somewhat limited experience.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The college needs to realistically assess why so many GPs are angry and losing faith.

    The college is hopelessly outdated and simply doesn't try and connect to the grassroots movements.

    Until I see the college doing more to engage on basic terms with their members (and more importantly, non members), I and many others will think of it as an ivory tower.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

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

Have your say

  • Print
  • Comments (39)
  • Rate
  • Save