Most GPs are unaware of their duties under new act

GPs may be surprised to find out they will need to comply with the Freedom of Information Act when it becomes law in England and Wales on 1 January 2005.

That was the message from the BMA's representative to a parliamentary select committee monitoring how effectively the new act is being introduced.

Dr John Grenville, a member of BMA General Practitioner Committee, made the statement while giving evidence last week (Tuesday 12 October) to the House of Commons Constitutional Affairs Committee.

“I think those who had read the Labour manifesto in 1997 probably thought this was about open government rather than GPs having to give information,” he said. “I do not think they followed it very closely—until they began to be told that it did apply to them and that they did have to do something.”

Under the act, which was passed in 2000 but whose implementation has been delayed, members of the public have a right to all types of information held by a public authority. For patients this right would be in addition to existing rights under the 1998 Data Protection Act to see their own medical records. The act could, for example, cover information on how much money a surgery receives from a primary care trust or organisation.

Although GPs are independent contractors they fall into the category of a public body for the purpose of the act. As a result they have to have what is called a “publication scheme” showing what services they provide, including opening hours and any protocols, and what information they hold. They must also respond to requests for information under the act.

The committee wanted to know how effective the available guidance was in helping public authorities prepare for their new responsibilities under the act.

Most GPs were relying on their primary care trusts or organisations for the information they needed, Dr Grenville said.

“We now find that we are coming up to 1 January and we are going to have to mount some sort of a campaign to remind people that things change on 1 January and that they will have to respond to requests. I think we will be able to do that. The timing is a little difficult.”

But many GPs were likely to be sceptical about the new arrangements, he warned. “I think many GPs will think, ‘Here's another hoop that we have to jump through.’ But we have to, so we will.

“The question is going to be one of workload and the resources required to deal with it. The difficulty … is that we have had no extra resources to cope with this, and we do not know about payment schedules and so on. We do not know what, if anything, we will be allowed to charge for.”

According to the BMA a number of GPs claim that the training provided by the primary care organisations has been unhelpful or, in some places, non-existent and that some practices have not received any information concerning the act.

The General Practitioners Committee has already produced a model publication scheme and arranged a seminar for GPs and their practice managers on the new act.

Speaking after the hearing Dr Grenville said: “The GPC [General Practitioners Committee] will be expanding its own guidance to remind practices of their obligations and will assist LMCs [local medical committees] who are ready to work with primary care organisations in helping GPs prepare for the act.”

For further details see www.bma.org.uk (search for “freedom of information”). The uncorrected witness evidence is accessible at the Constitutional Affairs Committee pages at http://www.parliament.uk/