RCGP Council 24/11/18

1) sponsorship review – This is being revisited. Sam Finnikin and I wrote a letter and asked that it was passed to each Trustee Board member and all officers. In the interests of transparency I have linked to it here. It includes an evaluation of the conference. RCGP Glasgow conference October 2018   letter to trustees 23rd October 2018

2) I noted that the RCGP seems to have funded ‘culinary medicine’ classes under ‘wellbeing’. The evidence base  for this was questioned. 

3) AF screening – The enthusiasm for the SoS for Health for screening despite the recommendation from the UK National Screening Committee not to was noted. I have asked that a college statement emphasising the UK NSC is made and reference to the SAFER study. It is deeply ironic that PHE/SoS can promote what they like without any ethics committee or governance whereas the SAFER study current awaits ethics approval. 

4) Future vision of GP 

what do I want? 

All GPs need to be scholars/community evidenceologists  

We need to be careful: 

in terms of population and well being/idea of networks proactive population health via ‘well being hubs’ 

we should not be promising what we cannot deliver

what about public health and political impacts on health – we need to be sure what we are in doing as we are in danger of medicalising normal life and of promising that we can do things that we simply can’t 

this needs fair political policy – not a free massage in response to failed policies like universal credit 

paper promotes unscheduled hospital admissions QI activities and social prescribing ? but where is the evidence 

https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/early/2018/11/04/bmjqs-2018-007976

so here’s what I’ll add to my vision of better GP 

Gps who know their patients and community and whose patients and community know them

who lead a team meaningfully  and with real relationships – not just signing off prescriptions for patients they haven’t met and staff they don’t know 

where we can identify and reduce uncertainty – via pragmatic real life trials

where the opportunity cost of all new policies is factored in 

where there is a clear strategy to review and retire non ebm policy 

there is an absolute need to involve patients 

don’t we want to be able to share decisions quickly and easily before and after consultations 

to have well informed patients who understand uncertainty and who are interested in evidence 

where people given information and help to make evidence based choices – e.g. shared decision aids / information 

5) Brexit motion – I seconded John Chisholm’s motion 

it’s very clear – Brexit is a policy which the best evidence says will harm health

the public has been misled- and it is the college duty to say what the predicable harms are 

we should ensure people make an informed choice on the reality of the deal – not overinflated claims and underestimations of harms