From the local medical committee conferenceReaccreditation must take a lower priorityFalling recruitment and morale must be addressedConference censures GMSC over generic prescribingGPs doubt independence of review bodyComplaints procedure should be more flexibleHome visits are anachronisticRegistrars' continued unease with summative assessmentGPs should not charge for travel vaccinationsBMJ 1995; 311 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.6996.63 (Published 01 July 1995) Cite this as: BMJ 1995;311:63
- Linda Beecham
From the local medical committee conference
Representatives of Britain's general practitioners have called on their negotiators to see how their contract can be split between in hours and out of hours services. The decision, which was taken at last week's conference of representatives of local medical committees, came in the wake of the breakdown of talks with the minister for health over out of hours work (p 7). If an approach to the health secretary, Mrs Virginia Bottomley, is unsuccessful the General Medical Services Committee will make arrangements for a ballot on industrial action.
The conference was chaired by Dr George Rae (North Tyneside) with Dr Eric Rose (Bedfordshire) as his deputy. Both were re-elected unopposed.
Reports of some of the debates are published here.
Reaccreditation must take a lower priority
Many general practitioners feel as strongly about reaccreditation as they do about out of hours work. This was obvious at the debate last week at the conference of representatives of local medical committees. The 1994 meeting had called for any system to be compulsory but the proposals from the General Medical Services Committee did not meet with universal approval. In its discussion document (25 February, p 536) the GMSC proposed that general practitioners would be reaccredited on a five year rolling cycle and that each doctor would be in contact at least once a year with a mentor who would exercise delegated authority on behalf of the regional adviser.
Although a motion rejecting the GMSC's discussion document was defeated, the conference resolved, by 143 votes to 88, that the subject should not be pursued until other matters, which had a higher priority, had been resolved. When the issue is negotiated the conference wants to be informed of the outcome before any scheme is implemented. The negotiators should insist on appropriate funding from new money and a significant reduction in workload to …
Log in using your username and password
Log in through your institution
Register for a free trial to thebmj.com to receive unlimited access to all content on thebmj.com for 14 days.
Sign up for a free trial