Agenda item

Ravenscroft Medical Centre

Kay Matthews, Chief Operating Officer, Barnet CCG

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced the item. She noted that a recent letter from the Chief Operating Officer, Barnet CCG, was tabled at the meeting.

 

Ms Matthews reported that on 21 October 2019 Millway Medical Practice had withdrawn from the joint application with Ravenscroft Medical Centre to provide Primary Care services at Finchley Memorial Hospital (FMH). This had ended the process as it had materially changed the nature of the project. Therefore, the proposed move of the Ravenscroft Medical Centre to FMH would not go ahead. It was noted that patients of the Ravenscroft Medical Centre were being notified of this update.

 

 

The Chairman noted that Lane End Medical Practice had been in the original consortium bid and this Practice had withdrawn in July. She enquired about the cost of the consultation and void space. Ms Matthews said this would be considered in a full review and during the After Action Review meeting, where lessons could be learnt for future projects. She noted the current priority was to notify all patients who would be affected of this decision.

 

A Member asked about the impact on FMH’s business plan. Ms Matthews responded that it was a difficult piece of work and many attempts had been made to put a GP Practice into FMH. Ms Matthews advised the CCG would be reviewing all options around FMH development and how this links to the newly formed PCNs.

 

A Member asked about the future of Ravenscroft Medical Centre, as the building appeared not to be fit for purpose. Ms Wood reported that the building needed some refurbishments but it was monitored by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to continue to ensure that the Practice is compliant.

 

A Member asked whether reasons had been provided publicly by the two Practices who had withdrawn and whether they had broken a contractual agreement. Ms Matthews noted that she was not privy to the reasons for the withdrawal of the two Practices and they did not legally have to provide any. The process had been just over five weeks from completion but neither Practice was in breach of their contract as this was an expression of interest process in relocating to FMH.

 

The Member asked whether there would never have been a contract in that case. Ms Wood responded that the three Practices would have continued with their existing contracts. It was noted that the CCG was not awarding a new contract as part of the Finchley Memorial Hospital ‘Expression of Interest’ process and that this was not a procurement. However, the CCG chose to apply best practice principles in order to ensure that the process was open, transparent, and equitable.   

The Member expressed astonishment that private businesses could withdraw after so much public money had been invested and asked that this should be a major part of the review. Ms Matthews stated that it was a frustrating situation, but Barnet CCG had had to follow Primary Care legislation, which was heavily regulated.

 

A Member enquired what preparations had already been made for the relocation, given that it was so close to being concluded. She also asked whether FMH was a viable proposition as the CCG had been trying to get GPs into FMH for the last nine years.

 

Ms Wood noted that a dedicated GP area had been prepared at the FMH and work had been undertaken to start to move other services to accommodate the GP Practice.

 

A Member noted that FMH was a great asset and, although there was no GP Practice, it had some wonderful services including its collaboration with the Dementia Club UK. She asked whether Ravenscroft Medical Centre could move to FMH on its own and then more interest from other GPs might follow. Ms Matthews stated that this would not be possible via the expression of interest process because the proposal that Ravenscroft had signed up to had changed materially.

 

A Member suggested that in the future such processes might be carried out in phases, with compensation being payable by parties who withdrew.

 

A Member asked whether the second consortium, which included Squires Lane GP Practice could be asked if they were still interested. Ms Matthews responded that this would not be feasible for the same reasons given i.e. the material change. She reiterated that since the process had begun, the scenario had completely changed with the development of PCNs. The CCG would reflect on all feedback provided before reaching a decision on the next steps.

 

RESOLVED that the Committee noted the letter from the CCG and the verbal report.