Welcome Guest | Login | Register | Why Register? |
Newsletter RSS Twitter
30 July 2010 | 11:57 GMT


HOME | CONTACT | NEWS | DOCUMENT LIBRARY | FEATURES | OPINION & ANALYSIS | EVENTS | RESEARCH REPORTS | CASE STUDIES
View reders comments View (4)
comments
Add a comment Add a
comment
Send to a friend Send to
a friend
Print this page Print

GP ratings launched on NHS Choices

Tags: Boundaries   Comments   feedback   GP   Rating  

14 Oct 2009

The Department of Health has launched a controversial online rating service to let patients rate and compare GP practices via its flagship website, NHS Choices.

Patients can upload comments on how easy it is to get an appointment at a particular practice, how highly they would recommend the practice, how well patients are treated by staff and if they feel involved in decisions about their care.

The DH said the ratings service would give patients all the information they need to choose between England’s 8,300 practices, following the recent announcement that practice boundaries are to be scrapped.

Health minister Mike O’Brien added: “This new tool allows every single GP practice in the country to see the patient’s view on what they are doing well and what needs to be improved.

"It will help drive up quality across the board, and is another step in ensuring we have a modern NHS which reflects the needs of the patient.”

The BMA said it was concerned that patients would not get an accurate picture of practice quality from the ratings service.

Dr Laurence Buckman, chairman of the BMA’s General Practitioner Committee, said surveys and patient participation groups were a more effective way of getting patient feedback because comments posted on the site would always be from a self-selected sample.

He added: “Unless a significant number of comments are generated - good or bad - it will be impossible to build up a reliable and accurate picture of the practice and its quality.

"Furthermore, our highest users, the elderly and the long-term sick, who are arguably in the best position to give useful feedback to other patients, are the least likely to post comments, as research shows they have the lowest rate of accessibility to the internet.”

The BMA said it had worked with the DH to develop the service after its creation was announced in December 2008 to ensure the system was as fair as possible and not open to abuse.

Dr Buckman added: “We are pleased that many of our initial concerns, such as the potential for malicious postings or the ability to post a right of reply, have been allayed. However, we remain to be convinced how much real value this will have for patients.”

The DH said the GP practice rating service was similar to its hospital comparison service launched this summer. It also claimed the tool would enable patients to find key information in one place, such as opening times and additional facilities offered by the GP practice.

The site was welcomed by Dr Peter Swinyard, chairman of the Family Doctors’ Association, who said: “"The Family Doctor Association supports this initiative and believes that patient feedback on GP services is an effective way of driving up the standards of primary care even further."

Fiona Barr

© 2009 E-HEALTH-MEDIA LTD. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Reader's Comments
Add a comment
Reader's Comments

1

Very welcome

15 Oct 09 12:10

One can understand Dr. Buckman's stance, of course, in seeking to protect his members from any unjust or skewed opinions, albeit that his reasons above for not having this new ratings system appear very weak (I rather suspect the opinion of anyone of any age is useful, not just that of an older or LTC patient).

However as a patient I would be very keen to know any 'real-life' views. In the case of a surgery of which I have experience, a prospective patient would be very keen to know that the doctor's diagnoses seem uncannily related to QOF. Not the case with every practice I'm sure, but a few comments to highlight to the surgery that it's quite obvious what is going on may well lead to improvement.


2

the problem with online commenting

15 Oct 09 23:10

Well I've looked up and made a comment on my practice. It was pretty easy to do and very quick. My comment was largely positive and 100% truthfull. I submitted it anonymously. I had to give an e-mail address to which they send an e-mail containing a link that allowed them to verify the source (but not the identity) of the submission. 

However I was disappointed that the web site had at least three factual innacuracies about the practice; the number and sex of the doctors and the opening hours were all wrong.

So why did I do it anonymously - well when I say its "my" practice what I mean is I'm one of the partners. I shall let them know in due course and request that my comment be removed.

The problem with allowing anonymous posting is that its validity is zero.

On the other hand non anonymous posting creates a hurdle that the (genuinely) discontented might very reasonably shy clear of.

Discuss.

 

 


3

a couple of comments for the previous poster..

glen.griffiths@interactivhealth.co.uk

16 Oct 09 16:10

.. the problem with online commenting.

1. Well done for trying to understand what has been introduced first hand by using the service yourself - as far as I can make out there is nothing to stop partners or employees of a Practice entering comments in any case.

2. I wholly agree with the poster that having an anonymous (unverified) posting is next to useless as a measure of quality as (IMHO) it allows (nay potentially promotes) distortion to take place particularly where a small sample of published comments is concerned. For a small Practice with one or 2 GPs it is almost impossible for comments not to end up being personal something which I feel is hideous. NHS Choices states that copies of messages submitted will be forwarded to Practices - did you receive yours? If you did I'm sure it was after the comment had been moderated externally and published - by who? what are their credentials? where are they located?- surely in this age of transparency we should be told -shouldn't we be able to rate them as well ... where does this end??

3. Fixing the entry for your practice on NHS Choices

- If NHS Choices has incorrect information about your Practice then you can get a login to make the changes yourself. That is how it now operates.

Having thought about this a great deal since I heard it was due to be launched, my own view (other than being horrified at the the thought of what it cost!) is that IMO the potential for harm outweighs the potential for good and if as I suspect its implementation is politically motivated to coincide with the push for Practice boundaries to be abolished within 12 months, then it is also extremely cynical.

There are other sites which offer a 'grassonmydoc.com' facility as well which are also extremely dubious particularly as in the case of the Practice where I am registered one site I have in mind has only 2 GPs listed - there are 8 doctors that work there, and one of the 2 listed left about 6 years ago - shoddy, shoddy, shoddy!

Patient feedback is something which I regard as extremely important. PCts have a PALS facility - what are they doing ? where is the joined up thinking around that? PPGs are often the eyes and ears of General Practice and I know from my own expereince make a difference in some cases.

Most importantly if we have to go this way, why more NIH??

One approch that I do think has merit is Patient Opinions and the professional approach they take with Trusts - this has run for several years, is embedded within trusts so that they have a natural right of reply and given that the focus is on Trusts with greater numbers of users the sample rates are such that when you read feedback from patients on a particular institution it 'makes sense' and is useful. I do hope they don't feel they have to go after General Practice as well.

Go on NHS Choices - rethink this, let us know how you will measure if it has been a success or not and let us know what you will do if as many predict little value will derive from seeing spurious comments from unidentified sources. This isn't the same as ebay or Amazon - think again.


4

other problems with NHS Choices

maryhawking@tigers.demon.co.uk

18 Oct 09 15:10

I had a look at NHS Choices before this when I was wondering whether it would be possible to use the information on LTCs as part of patient personal health plans, and again as a result of this new initiative. I find the site extremely cluttered, and difficult to negotiate: the information is very outdated (including availability of extended hours), so I doubt whether many patients - especially happy ones - will bother to comment or, more importantly, use the site to select a new practice which I think is the objective of patient ratings. Unless it is intended to be an item in blanced score cards?

One of the fascinating things I found wandering about was the ratings on the patient surveys, especially the question on "how satisfied are you with your ability to see a doctor of your choice even if you have to wait?" Single handers (apart from Dr Buckman!) sem to have scores between 20 and 40%. Did the patients understand the question? and if they didn't, what did they think the question meant and how well did all patients understand the rest of the questions in the survey?

Search
News Features Jobs Newsletters
EHI Primary Care Tweets
EHI Primary Care Tweets

Featured_recruiters
Featured_recruiters