To ensure they are adequately heard in the development of STPs, GP practices need a strong and clear voice. But who will represent them? In his latest blog Ben argues that there are a number of options but ultimately local GPs must decide this for themselves.

There is not always strength in numbers. While there are 7875 GP practices, there are only 154 acute trusts, yet the influence of the latter appears far larger in the development of the 44 local Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STPs). Worse, the numbers work against practices: while it is possible for every acute trust to be represented on STPs (there are an average 3.5 acute trusts per STP), the same is not true for every GP practice (there are an average 179 GP practices per STP).

Does this matter? Is representation important? General practice has left many of these things alone in the past and in the main has avoided what would have been a colossal waste of their time. But the world is shifting. Alongside the ever growing pressure on resources, providers are being asked to come together and decide for themselves how what little money there is should be spent. Instead of a series of bilateral agreements between the different providers and a system arbiter, the STPs are looking for a single agreement across all parties.

In the past general practice could ignore local developments, protected by a single, nationally negotiated contract. But now the NHS is shifting to a series of bespoke, local agreements. Much of the promised additional £2.4bn for general practice is coming outside of the core contract. New, local, multispecialty community provider (MCP) contracts are emerging, with much more room for local negotiation than was ever possible with the national GP contract. It is a brave GP practice that will allow the other providers in the system to determine how much funding, and with what strings, they should receive.

So if we accept it is not possible for 179 practices to all represent themselves in local discussions, even if only for practical and logistical reasons, who should represent them? Insufficient thought and effort has so far been put into resolving this question, not only by local systems but also by practices themselves. In many cases the local system has decided how general practice is to be represented. But if I ran a practice, I would want to make that decision myself, along with my fellow practices.

There are a number of options available. First, the CCG could represent its practices. It is after all a membership organisation and each practice is a member of its local CCG. The problem comes because the remit of CCGs extends across all providers, and they continually have to go to extraordinary lengths to demonstrate they are not favouring their member practices. It is more or less impossible for CCGs to both carry out their role as CCGs and simultaneously represent general practice effectively.

Second, the RCGP could represent general practice. The RCGP has appointed RCGP ambassadors for each of the 44 STP areas, whose role (according to the RCGP website) is to “maximise investment in general practice at a local level, track developments, and make sure that GPs have a very strong voice in the GP Forward View across England”. The RCGP is supposed to focus on improving patient care, clinical standards and GP training, and while I am sure the RCGP ambassadors are a good thing for general practice, it is hard to see them having the mandate or infrastructure to be able to adequately represent practices in local negotiations.

There are two more realistic options. The first is the local LMC. Their explicit purpose is, after all, to represent general practice. There is often resistance to their inclusion, as they are seen more as a trade union than as a reasonable representative of GP practices. Their leaders are rarely viewed, for example, in the same way that an acute trust CEO might be viewed. But they are statutory bodies, funded by a statutory levy on practices. Tracey Vell, leader of the LMCs in Greater Manchester, argues it is essential LMCs talk for GP practices in STP discussions, and also recounts how it was only through grit and determination that she was able to ensure they gained a voice around the table in Manchester.

Second, the local federation(s) could represent general practice. This is tricky because federations vary so significantly in the way they are set up and what they have been established to do. Where their role is to generate and deliver additional services across a group of practices, local practices can become resentful pretty quickly if the local federation leaders are seen to overstep the mark and assume they can talk on behalf of their member practices. But equally where one of the reasons for the local federation is to strengthen the voice of the member practices then this can work really well.

Nothing of course is stopping GP practices setting up a federation just for this purpose. If they don’t feel (for whatever reason) that the way they are being represented is satisfactory, they can create a federation, appoint a spokesperson, and all they would need to fund between them is the cost of that person’s time.

It is also not unreasonable for there to be more than one voice for general practice. If the 3.5 acute trusts in each STP area each have their own voice, then general practice can reasonably expect to have more than one voice. In Manchester they have a “GP Advisory group” which contains the federation and LMC leaders, and then this group has a voice on the main board, mirroring arrangements for the acute trusts.

We are at a point in time when local representation of GP practices, and the establishment of a strong voice for those practices, is more important than ever before. Unusually, GP practices need this representation more than the system needs it. If effective representation has not yet been achieved, it is GP practices themselves who now need to take responsibility for making it happen.