FRIENDS & FAMILY TEST
FFT must not create bureaucratic burdens for GPs
Dr Maureen Baker, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP), explains that the introduction of FFT to GP surgeries must be ‘workable’ and ‘flexible’.
P
roviding feedback to GP teams can improve the care they deliver to patients,
according to the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP), with many surgeries already actively encouraging patients to raise concerns if they feel that the care and services they have received are below their expectations.
NHE was told that when the FFT becomes a contractual requirement for GP practices from 1 December 2014, it will provide another opportunity for patients to raise their concerns.
Dr Maureen Baker, who became chair of the RCGP in 2013, told us: “The GP-patient relationship is unique in the NHS and GPs remain the most trusted healthcare professionals in the UK, with the vast majority of patients reporting positive experiences after visiting their GP.
“However, there is always room for improvement and it is important that all patient feedback – whether positive or negative – is taken very seriously.”
She added that at a time when GPs are facing intense financial and workforce pressures, it is essential that implementation of the FFT is as “workable” and “flexible” for GPs as possible.
Reducing bureaucratic burdens?
Earlier this year an NHS England Review of the FFT stated that the collection of FFT data at GP and outpatient services will increase the volume of data collection to an industrial scale, “such that issues of sustainability may need to be considered, i.e. what can be done within the cost boundary and with the limited resources available to the service”.
It added that there is a trade-off that needs to be made between ensuring the qualitative feedback is listened to and creating an unsustainable industry around its usage.
Dr Baker said the RCGP has been in discussions with NHS England and other stakehold- ers to work out how to maxim- ise the benefits of the FFT in terms of improving services for patients without creating any further, unnecessary bu- reaucratic burdens.
However, she noted: “What is really needed to improve patient care across the entire health service is more investment in general practice. We are calling for 11% of the overall NHS budget by 2017 so that we can offer shorter waiting times for appointments, as well as more flexible opening hours and better continuity of care for our patients in their communities.”
The RCGP appears to have mollified its criticism of the FFT. Last year, in response to the ‘Improving general practice – a call to action’ consultation, Professor Nigel Mathers, honorary secretary of council at the RCGP, wrote: “We would caution against placing undue emphasis on the FFT. In our view, this will fail to provide as meaningful a measure of patient experience as the GP Patient Survey, not least as it risks making overly simplistic – and therefore misleading – comparisons between different GP providers.
“Moreover, the FFT will inevitably impose an additional administrative burden on practices, and will duplicate feedback already received through the Patient Survey.”
This view has been reiterated by BMA chair Dr Kailash Chand who has said he doubts anyone really believes the introduction of FFT to GP practices will improve patient care. The move “appears more of a political gimmick rather than a clinically meaningful mandate for general practice,” he has been quoted as saying.
Dr Chand stated that effective patient engagement will be crucial to developing improved models of care, but the FFT data collection may lead to the generation of league tables based on customer satisfaction rather than clinical outcomes.
Prof Mathers added that in order to ensure the roll-out of the FFT is as effective as possible, the RCGP would urge NHS England firstly to ensure that the ‘comparability’ issue is addressed and explained (see page 51), and secondly to minimise the additional bureaucracy faced by practices in implementing the test.
He added at the time: “We recognise that patient choice of provider is one means of empowering patients and driving quality improvements. However, we feel that, in order to improve patient outcomes and deliver cost-effective care, it will be more important to focus on new forms of choice that are based on the principles of prevention, shared-decision making, improved sharing of patient information, and the provision of more care in the community.”
Dr Maureen Baker
TELL US WHAT YOU THINK
opinion@nationalhealthexecutive.com
national health executive Sep/Oct 14 | 49
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104