Agenda item

The Committee received a presentation from the Islington GP Federation (IGPF) as part of their scrutiny review. The federation explained they could not speak on behalf of individual GP practices but had a role in supporting those practices. They were owned by all but one eligible Islington GP Practice. The IGPF’s vision was to ensure and shape how all Islington registered patients had free and equitable access to good, safe, value for money primary care into the future. Some examples of their work included supporting GP practices facing difficulties; individual practice support; a physical support programme for homeless people and another for those who had severe mental health needs; development of a digital triage hub and support for four out of five primary care networks. It was highlighted that practice-based pharmacists were now helping with medicine management to enable GP’s to have more time seeing patients and that clusters of practices were working together analysing and benchmarking data to improve access.

Following a question about the Northern Medical Practice the Committee were informed that the practice would be housed at the Holloway Health Centre.

A committee member asked whether there were plans for or whether there had already been implemented across the federation, skills share opportunities if a GP Service may have developed specialist knowledge in a particular area, such as transgender medicine or care. The IGPF said that GPs are considered generalists and work with patients holistically. 

The IGPF were asked about planning for demand and capacity and they informed the committee that they didn’t represent individual practices however they had changed how they managed access and were now using a triage system to manage calls more efficiently. They had also looked at patterns of behaviour and realised there were 50% more contacts on a Monday so they could adjust their staffing model accordingly. GPs were also working with digital hub administrators to deal more efficiently with patient queries. 

A committee member asked about the recording of transgender and gender diverse people’s information as misgendering could impact a person’s willingness to engage with the service. Additionally, it was important to ensure appropriate health screenings were being carried out.  The IGPF explained that preferred names were used but they could do more work to ensure those patients needs were being flagged. A councillor offered to provide a copy of a previous scrutiny review into access to everyday healthcare for transgender and gender diverse people.

 The IGPF were asked what learning there had been from supporting the two GP practices that had been facing difficulties and whether there were any plans to bid for practices. It was explained that the IGPF would be bidding for practices, but its ethos was to support practices to get back on their feet wherever possible.

A committee member asked how the IGPF protected patients’ data. It was explained that they had a contract with a Data Protection Officer. They spoke of a tension between patients wanting access to their records and directives from national government to share information and the safety of digital applications.  

The Chair asked whether it was true that some GP surgeries were working at five times their capacity. The IGPF said that it was possible to grow and retain quality if the challenges were met effectively by the practices. The role of the IGPF was to support each other not to scrutinise quality.

The Chair asked whether there was support for those who had difficulty accessing appointments digitally. The IGPF explained that the primary method of consultation was through econsult, which was online, but that 20% of patients did not want to use the platform. Those patients could either phone in or attend the practice. Disadvantaged groups were also being proactively engaged with to help tackle digital exclusion.