CHRE report hits out at group conversion rates

Baker: where's the evidence?

Claims that moving from independent practice to working for a corporate group sharply increases conversion rates - and comments about the 'emerging profession' of retinopathists - were challenged last week.

The claims have been made by the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence, the statutory body which receives £2m a year in funding. Established to oversee the work of the GOC and the UK's other health regulatory bodies, details emerged in its 2005 review report of the GOC, and have been presented to the GOC itself.

At last week's public GOC meeting John Baker voiced his alarm at the CHRE's comments.

In its 'challenges for the future' section, the CHRE stated: 'While working for larger companies offers some advantages for public protection (for instance in terms in training), there could be tensions between professional advice and commercial pressures. One example of this is the conversion rate between a consultation and a product being sold.

'This rate rises sharply when a registrant changes from independent practice to employed practice.'

Baker said: 'I don't think this has been substantiated. I want to know whether it was us that suggested this to CHRE that this is the case, and on what evidence that this assertion has been made.'

The report's chapter on the corporate sector concluded: 'The GOC's Section 60 Order, which will modify its legislation, will allow the GOC to bring proceedings against a registrant company if it appears to interfere with clinical decision-making.'

In another section of the CHRE report, headed 'emerging professions' it stated: 'The GOC mentioned that, with the blurring of professional boundaries, one of its challenges will be the regulation of emerging professions such as retinopathists.'

GOC chairman Rosie Varley agreed that some of the comments in CHRE's review were 'were less than helpful', but reassured the Council that the report was a 'mutual review, and doesn't hold us [the GOC] to account'.

In defence of the CHRE she commented: 'Elsewhere in the report CHRE flagged up some of our own concerns, specifically the fact that we're [the GOC] still not on the Home Office list for organisations to which notification of convictions is made, a matter for serious concern.'

She told the GOC that the CHRE was making 'very strong representations to the Home Office on our behalf on that front'.

'And the CHRE has made known the injustice of funding for CET in that DOs do not get funding whereas OOs do.'

She also praised the fact that the CHRE had pointed out that the GOC needed a formal scheme for complaints against the Council, which it now has implemented.

Nevertheless, she said that the CHRE's comments regarding retinopathists were irritating. It was a subject 'we would not wish to emphasise at the moment,' and promised in future CHRE draft papers would be properly scrutinised.

david.challinor@rbi.co.uk