RCP president, Sir Richard Thompson said:
On commissioning:
The Royal College of Physicians (RCP) welcomes the government’s commitment that hospital doctors will be on the boards of local commissioning groups, as the RCP previously urged. We believe this will benefit patient care by brining together clinical colleagues in commissioning decisions. The renaming of commissioning consortia to clinical commissioning groups will reflect the collaboration from a wide range of experts to commission the best services for patients.
The RCP has urged that seamless care is more likely to be achieved when hospital doctors are involved in the highest level of commissioning decision making – sitting on the decision making boards of commissioning groups. In turn, we would like GPs to sit on the boards of foundation trusts. In this way all doctors will work together to lead a health service in the best interests of patients.
Suzie Hughes, chair of RCP’s Patient and Carer Network said:
I welcome the government’s commitment for there to be two lay members on clinical commissioning groups, and a named champion for patient and public involvement. It is crucial that patients are strategically involved throughout the health service, with lay involvement in commissioning decisions. This commitment must be formalised in the Bill.
Sir Richard continued:
On integration:
The commitment to strengthen clinical networks is important, particularly their role in advising the National Commissioning Board. The new duty for clinical commissioning groups to promote integrated services for patients across the NHS and social care is a step in the right direction.
On quality:
We welcome the commitment for the NHS Commissioning Board to have strong links with the royal colleges. The RCP conducts clinical audits and produces clinical guidelines with strong clinical input and based on robust evidence. We stand ready and willing to inform standard setting and outcome measures, which will drive up quality throughout the NHS. The work to develop quality measures for the NHS must start now to ensure clinical commissioning groups can purchase services based on outcomes. We look forward to entering dialogue with government about this.
On competition:
The removal of Monitor’s role to promote competition and the commitment that it will ensure a level playing field across providers goes a long way to meeting our concerns. We look forward to influencing the guidance that will be developed between the National Commissioning Board and Monitor that will set out how choice and competition should be applied, and how services should be integrated. The government has stated that Monitor’s duty will be to protect and promote patients’ interests. The Health and Social Care Bill must clearly reflect these commitments. The RCP now waits to see how these commitments will reconcile choice and patient safety.
On education and training:
While we are pleased that the government has recognised our concerns that there is a need for ‘a safe and robust transition for the education and training system’, without fundamental review the government’s current proposals for reform medical education and training will put the next generation of doctors’ training at risk and could jeopardise patient safety.
We support the early implementation of Health Education England to retain a national perspective on setting standards and planning the medical workforce, but the vital role that deaneries play in planning, organising and delivering postgraduate medical education and training must be maintained, not just through the period of reform, but also in the long term.