This is what I said, sorry if it’s disjointed, no point repeating what anyone else has said. So

1. Royal Patrons – if RCGP ever asked for, must ensure that process includes a commitment to evidence based healthcare

2) China process: concerns this is being seen as a commercial enterprise ; my belief is that the college can help GPs in other countries to set up their own institutions and exams but should not see this as a commercial opportunity; should not be accepting money from Chinese government; asked for a debate regarding this (will happen in nov) : asked treasurer for note of money in vs out

3) Thermo Fisher – what exactly is the relationship with college (will get more info given) 

4) why aren’t there more women and BAME people speaking to us at ‘big lectures’ – can we have 10 years of only women and minorities to make up the numbers (can we get ordinary GPs who don’t have any grand titles come and speak? I think the RCGP can and should be different in terms of how we view the extraordinary in the ordinary) 

5) If the GMC are going to change GPs to specialists on the register, that will take new legislation. If there is new legislation, that would give the GMC opportunity to include the need for a statutory declaration of interest register. Ask for policy team to look at this and further discuss. fingers x 

6) Fit for the Future paper:

retaining workforce : we need to get doctors back into practice asap if they are able to return ? do we need case managers who push through and give money to get back on list (expensive for people who have nothing) – let’s actually help

can we keep almost retired doctors in practice by lightening admin load especially appraisal

supervising others – is this really what we want to end up doing – stressful, often transient, is supervision really our first best thing we can do,  is this high quality and is this sustainable, why don’t we work on  *** taking out all the stuff that no one needs to do in the first place ***

finally Sam and I’s Evidence and Values work – we want to highlight what it is that GPs and patients actually value about their work/ their GP.

7) I think we should stop talking about ‘innovation’ and start taking about ‘evidence based change’ – innovation as a bracket has been used to waste money and harm patients and staff. So: ‘What actions are required to to de-risk early adoption that can be used to inform service development in a ‘test and learn’ environment’

I would score that out and say : We need systematic review, randomised controlled trials, independent evaluation, and compulsory publication. Otherwise we waste money, harm patients, and repeat our mistakes.

8) NEWS scores in primary care.

Physiological measures are one thing: NEWS scores to prioritise ambulances should not be used from primary care: NEWS was developed as a measure to transfer patients in hospital to high intensity care settings: we cannot assume that this will result in good care either though overdiagnosis and under diagnosis and we should not proceed without high quality evidence that it is safe.

9) paper on non UK NSC approved screening passed. Relief/pleased/knackered. will post on once have checked am allowed to (don’t want to spoil it now)