The King's Fund

The King's Fund Offices - nice.

Over the years, I have been dimly aware of a charity called the "King's Fund". It was initially set up in the 19th Century and has moved on since then.

They have recently been very active, and are now seen as a useful organisation to work for, having recently had Niall Dixon (now GMC) and currently Chris Ham as Chief Executives.

I have had a look at the Board of Trustees, and they include many of the private sector supporters of break-up of the NHS, including Simon Stevens, Julian le Grand, Penny Dash and many others. Not a single active clinician amongst them.

The recent reports that the King's Fund have released have all largely been anti-NHS, anti-GP and pro Government in their tone. There is another one today, which talks about variations in referral patterns in primary care. The report is here, and it is making headlines in the media - unwritten text implying that GPs are rubbish.

"GPs  blamed for cancer care referral lottery"

It was written by a group of 4 people, being the overseen by Sir Ian Kennedy, Dame Ursula Gallagher, Dr Rebecca Rosen, and two doctors with an agenda - Dr Michael Dixon and Professor Steve Field (for it is he).

This organisation may proclaim its independence, but it is hardline in its ethos to healthcare. How can it not be with such an unbalanced organisation at the top?

Having said that, and wading through some of the Government inspired language about the virtues of commissioning, the conclusions are fairly obvious, indeed, anodyne.

Conclusions

■ General practice has evolved significantly from its origins. Many practices have been at the vanguard of innovation and quality improvement. However, if general practice is to meet its new responsibilities and maintain its international reputation for excellence, it needs to adapt significantly.

■ The transition will not be easy. Those leading practice organisations and GP consortia have the opportunity to build on the strong values and professional ethos to be found in general practice.

■ General practice will need to have a relentless focus on improving the quality of care given to patients, supported by the proactive use of data and information to do so.

■ Quality improvement needs to balance and combine external scrutiny and regulation with locally driven, peer-led and user-centred approaches. The key to achieving this balance is transparency. Reporting on quality – to patients, between peers, to other care partners, and to commissioners and regulators – can help create a ‘virtuous circle’ of quality improvement.

■ GP commissioning could provide a new platform through which improvements in the quality of care of general practice can be driven.

From a Jobbing Doctor's point of view this can be broken down into:

Need to be flexible, build on what we have, improve quality, increase transparency. That's OK.

But what's all this about GP Commissioning being a new platform?

I don't think so. They clearly do.