A Constitution for Stockport's Clinical Commissioning Group

Closed 5 Dec 2011

Opened 10 Nov 2011

Results Updated 6 Dec 2011

12 GPs took part in the online consultation.

Views were mixed, but overall respondents expressed a positive view of the plans:

  • Most people were satisfied with the proposed constitution
  • Most felt the structure reflected what local GPs want
  • The majority believed this structure represents a true shift towards GP-led commissioning
  • GPs were happy with the number of opportunities available for them in the new structures
  • The vast majority were happy with the balance of clinicians represented on the Board
  • The majority were also happy with the membership structure and how involved Practices would be in decisions
  • Membership rules were viewed as well balanced
  • The closest vote was on how much power CCG members have to scrutinize the CCG, with 7 in favour of the proposals and 5 thinking there should be more scrutiny power for member Practices
  • A majority felt that the planned CCG was suitably transparent, with powers for local people to have their say
  • It was felt by most that the rules for conflicts of interest were suitable, though fears were expressed of the potential media scrutiny
  • GPs were happy with the attention in the Constitution to the CCG’s role locally and in the NHS, though fears were expressed that the NCB and Cluster may disempower the CCG

Voting Rights

Concern was expressed about the lack of a majority for GPs on the Board.

It was suggested that Health Watch and Council representatives at Board should also have voting rights.

One GP suggested that LMC should be given more of a role.

 Transparency

Concern was expressed over publication of all salaries over £50k – it was suggested this should be raised to £100k to prevent media intrusion.

Although most believe the plans make the CCG transparent and open to public views, fears were expressed that a lack of local involvement may lead to increased resentment of GPs.

GP Input

It was suggested that many GPs have little understanding of the process and, as such, their views are going unnoticed.

Though most GPs felt this structure allowed for true GP-led commissioning, there were fears that GPs would take all of the responsibility, but lose power to other organisations like the National Commissioning Board, the PCT Clusters and Local Authorities.

A number of comments were submitted with regard to the lack of appetite among GPs to take on the commissioning role.

Concerns were also expressed about the lack of potential GP candidates to suitably fill the roles outlined in the Constitution.

Positive feedback was given about the current CCP leadership and their communications to Practices, but it was suggested that more face-to-face meetings should be held with GPs across the borough to increase feedback.

Staffing

The suggestion was made that the NHS drive to reduce managers should instead be a drive to increase clinical input and remove those managers who are underperforming. GPs welcomed the potential within the constitution to do this locally.

Overview

Stockport Clinical Commissioning Pathfinder is working on the plans for the future of healthcare commissioning in the borough.

Below, you will find a link to our draft Constitution, which sets out the proposed model for Stockport's CCG.

Why We Are Consulting

Stockport Clinical Commissioning Group aims to be a membership organisation, made up of local clinicians and taking decisions on their behalf.

Before moving forward with our plans, we want to know the views of local GPs on the proposed structure, to ensure that the future CCG is truly representative of its constituent member Practices.

Please take a moment to look over our plans, before completing a short survey to feed back your views on the draft constitution.

What Happens Next

Your views will be used to develop the constitution.

Areas

  • All Areas

Audiences

  • GP

Interests

  • Management