Please note that I stating only what I said: there is no point repeating what other people have said already in the meeting if those points have been accepted.

1. I asked for a response about organisations who have been allowed to sponsor the annual RCGP conference but promote non evidence based services or information. I was assured this would be dealt with. It is a recurrent problem. There seems to be a lack of clinical oversight in judging sponsorship packages. It would be far better if there was no sponsorship at all. I was assured this wouldn’t happen again after Babylon.
2. CQC paper. It is of great concern to me that they don’t regulate non evidence based practices. I have complained to them about clinical services like iv vitamin clinics, private screening, Bredesen protocol, etc etc. They don’t take any action. Neither do the GMC. The only organisation that do are the ASA, and even then, recently they haven’t been publishing judgements but telling clinics to change their websites etc. But this means that potential customers can’t see what’s happened and it doesn’t get followed up by them – people have to complain again or go to Trading Standards. That’s what the CQC should be concentrating on.
3. I am concerned about the review of the nominations committee. This is a very powerful committee who basically decide who is fit to stand for positions within the organisation.
4. Dr Heather Ryan brought a motion about private practice and evidence based medicine. Part of the reason that NHS GP is falling over is because of having to deal with low value or harmful testing results done elsewhere and which are not recommended by the UK National Screening Committee or NICE. Patient ‘choice’ is not a reason to do non evidence based things. Commercial pressures can have bad consequences for patient care – and similar was seen in the NHS with QOF. I will offer to write something with colleagues on screening evidence and stats, it’s confusing and it is often not taught well.