Agenda item - City GP Services: Performance

Update on comparative performance of city GP practices (copy attached)

35.1    This item was introduced by Ms Elizabeth Tinley, Service Lead, Brighton & Hove City Primary Care Contracts and Commissioning Directorate, Sussex Commissioning Support Unit.

35.2    Members agreed that they were disappointed that this report did not include information on the performance of individual GP practices in the city and asked for a paper to be circulated including this material.

35.3    Members also asked for some work to be done mapping the relative performance of city GP practices against areas of deprivation across the city – i.e. to ascertain whether GP practice performance was significantly correlated with derivation etc – and requested that this be circulated alongside information on comparative performance.

35.4    In response to a question from Cllr Robins on the use of locums by individual GP practices, members were told that PCTs had no power to influence the use of locums by GP practices – the practice rather than named GPs is contracted to provide services. However, Ms Tinley agreed to find out whether information on locums was nonetheless collated, and, if so, whether there was any correlation between locum use and performance.

35.5    In answer to a question from Mr Hazelgrove on Patient Groups, members were informed that patients could choose to establish their own groups, although this could cause problems as the groups had to be fully representative of the practice population rather than a self-selecting sample.

35.6    The Chair thanked Ms Tinley for her contribution.

35.7    That the committee should receive additional information on:

            (a) comparative performance of each city GP practice

            (b) mapping of GP performance against city demographics

(c) use of locums and its correlation (if any) with GP practice performance.