I usually post up what I’ve said. It was a very long meeting. I try not to repeat things that others have said.

I contributed towards one paper written by Victoria Tzortziou Brown. My concern is that honours etc given out by college (eg lecturerships, FRCGPs) should be actively trying to increase diversity, the sex difference is very wide.
It had lots of support and I am very hopeful that a new trend for better balance will begin.
(Of note, again, it’s sex that is the protected characteristic, not gender, and not gender identity.)

The other two things I said were:
Relationship based care:
fundamental to practice however we need to to be clear that the evidence for better care is that of association not causation, this should be reason to be cautious, and not assume that it’s ‘just seeing the same person’. We also should be cognisant of Goodharts’ law, where targets can make GP outcomes worse, and that sometimes GPs and patients are better off having flexibility in who they see – for all sorts of reasons.
I also said that we need to think better about what GPs should be stopping doing (bureaucracy/appraisal esp) and working out what resources we would need to fulfil the vision being painted (50K GPs extra? who knows?). Otherwise we are just setting ourselves and everyone else up for disappointment.

Multidisciplinary teams:
sounds good. However we lack evidence about what can reduce workload for many current changes to the contract (pharmacists – evidence of benefit, however currently the model in scotland seems to rest on pharmacy technicians). My fear is that this will inadvertently increase workload and have other unintended consequences – many GPs may not wish to take full clinical responsibility for people who they have not trained or directly employ, and whose work is defined and managed by an external NHS agency…it’s easy to see how interventions designed to decrease GP workload actually don’t.

Finally on electronic triage tools I suggested that we need to consider tests (like Gordons’ test for the euro). I suggested that we needed to know: evidence for safety, evidence on workload impact, evidence on impact on inequalities, evidence on cost effectiveness, carbon footprint, and patient and professional popularity. We shouldn’t end up with a pick and mix cabaret of stuff which hasn’t been tested well enough and ends up directing resources where people get very little benefit.