• Neil Perkins, Anna Coleman, Michael Wright, Erica Gadsby, Imelda McDermott, Christina Petsoulas, and Kath Checkland.
• Centre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
• Br J Gen Pract. 2014 Nov 1; 64 (628): e728-34.

BackgroundThe 2012 Health and Social Care Act in England replaced primary care trusts with clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) as the main purchasing organisations. These new organisations are GP-led, and it was claimed that this increased clinical input would significantly improve commissioning practice.AimTo explore some of the key assumptions underpinning CCGs, and to examine the claim that GPs bring 'added value' to commissioning.Design And SettingIn-depth interviews with clinicians and managers across seven CCGs in England between April and September 2013.MethodA total of 40 clinicians and managers were interviewed. Interviews focused on the perceived 'added value' that GPs bring to commissioning.ResultsClaims to GP 'added value' centred on their intimate knowledge of their patients. It was argued that this detailed and concrete knowledge improves service design and that a close working relationship between GPs and managers strengthens the ability of managers to negotiate. However, responders also expressed concerns about the large workload that they face and about the difficulty in engaging with the wider body of GPs.ConclusionGPs have been involved in commissioning in many ways since fundholding in the 1990s, and claims such as these are not new. The key question is whether these new organisations better support and enable the effective use of this knowledge. Furthermore, emphasis on experiential knowledge brings with it concerns about representativeness and the extent to which other voices are heard. Finally, the implicit privileging of GPs' personal knowledge ahead of systematic public health intelligence also requires exploration.© British Journal of General Practice 2014.

16 keywords...

hide…