Volume 3

Medical research and the NHS reforms / House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology.

  • Great Britain. Parliament. House of Lords. Science and Technology Committee.
Date:
1995
Catalogue details

Licence: Open Government Licence

Credit: Medical research and the NHS reforms / House of Lords, Select Committee on Science and Technology. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    37/404 (page 133)
    ssn 24 January 1995] [Continued There are many nuances in patterns of behaviour, the interpretation of general practitioner records, and the significance of what was not done which can only be fully appreciated by those clinically proficient in the field. The College supports multidisciplinary research, but is concerned that research, especially on the primary/secondary care interface should always have substantial primary care involvement at the design, supervision and reporting stages. RECOMMENDATION: THAT MORE RESEARCH NEEDS TO BE DONE “IN” AS WELL AS “ON” GENERAL PRACTICE (2) POSTGRADUATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENTS/INSTITUTES OF GENERAL PRACTICE In 1987 there were over 100 professors in the postgraduate institutes of the British Postgraduate Medical Federation, but there was only one professor of general practice in Britain in a postgraduate department (RCGP, 1987). There are, in 1995, now three such general practice professors, but the disparity remains substantial. General practice has.developed a number of postgraduate university departments/institutes of general practice, in universities which do not have responsibility for teaching undergraduate medical students. The College has welcomed these and has called in 1987 and 1994 for them to be supported. They face a number of special problems, especially in funding, and for example, they receive no funding from SIFTR, since they do not have prime responsibility for undergraduate medical students. Simultaneously, their staff may not be eligible for funding through the Higher Education Funding Councils’ research assessment exercise, as their posts are usually not paid through the core funding of their university, but by various outside sources. They may therefore be doubly disadvantaged. RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE POSTGRADUATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENTS OF GENERAL PRACTICE BE REVIEWED (3) MERIT AWARDS FOR GENERAL PRACTITIONERS HOLDING FULL- OR PART-TIME SALARIED APPOINTMENTS IN UNIVERSITIES/MEDICAL SCHOOLS The College’s policy on merit awards was first set out in 1987, namely that there should be no discrimination against those general practitioners who take up part-time or full-time appointments in medical schools or universities. Once they accept salaried employment in these organisations the College believes that general practitioner academics should be treated exactly the same as all other academic doctors with clinical responsibilities. The College was pleased that this policy was endorsed by the Conference of Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties in the UK and a letter from the then Chairman, Professor Sir Dilwyn Williams (1990, see Appendix 5) was sent to the then Secretary of State for Health, Mr Kenneth Clarke. Unfortunately, this coincided with all the changes in the NHS reforms and was not implemented. The next step was that the Department of Health set up the Kendell Committee which reported on distinction awards in 1994. The College was pleased that its case was acknowledged and no flaw was found (paragraph 8.6) in that case. However, in the next paragraph (paragraph 8.7) for no clear reason, the Committee declined to implement the policy. The exclusion of academic salaried general practitioners on the staff of universities and medical schools is odd when academic public health doctors, postgraduate medical deans, and community dentists are all included as is the contribution from medical managers. The current policy represents a serious form of discrimination against academic general practice, just when it needs incentives and rewards for good performance. Given the Culyer Committee’s adoption of 11 “values” two of which are that “Research and development are the key stones of a knowledge based evaluative culture in the NHS” and that ‘Research should follow explicit priorities”, reform is indicated. \ Given also the new policy of a “primary care led NHS”’, the RCGP invites the Select Committee to advise the Department of Health to remove this discrimination against university general practice/primary care.