31.10.18
CQC to evaluate online GP providers like GP at Hand’s effects on wider care services
The chief inspector of GP services at the CQC has said that the health inspectorate will be evaluating the impact Babylon’s ‘GP at Hand’ mobile app will have on overall standards of care.
Speaking at the Commons Health Select Committee yesterday, Professor Steve Field argued that the GP at Hand app championed by health secretary Matt Hancock was potentially having an effect on patients in their local area, adding that the CQC “will be looking” at the surgeries impacted on the quality of care that they provide as a result of the app.
Prof Field highlighted the CQC’s inspections of 35 online GP providers between 2016-17, and found issues at 30— which included instances of high prescribing of opiates.
Prof Field noted that the sector was now “improving,” however added that the health inspectorate “will not tolerate” online providers who provide unsafe services.
Committee chair and former GP Dr Sarah Wollaston queried whether the online GP providers such as GP at Hand were having a “destabilising effect” on the wider system.
“Online consulting is a rapidly emerging area. The new secretary of state is going to be focussing on this. It’s not just the use of health apps, which nobody seems to regulate, it seems to be that it’s just trading standards—that NICE don’t have a role, and nor do the CQC it seems. It’s looking at both the role of apps that patients are relying on, but also systems like Babylon and GP at Hand,” Dr Wollaston explained.
She asked Prof Field: “Do you also have concerns that they may have a destabilising effect on the wider system? In other words, are you looking not just at that individual alternative model, but also its effect on other models around it? Particularly in semi-rural and rural areas?”
Prof Field said the CQC does not have the powers and responsibility of commissioning and contracting the services: “The problem we have at the CQC is that we are an independent and a strong regulator, but we do not do the commissioning and the contracting.
“So we are observers of services that have perhaps started recently in London—if you’re alluding to the impact on other patients there— so we can observe that. And we will be looking at the surgeries that may be impacted on the quality of care that they provide.”
He added: “On one hand I would support the introduction of these alternative ways of consulting. Because it could save time for clinicians and will certainly save time for patients that want to use those services—but they do have to be safe and effective just like face-to-face consulting.
“So one of my concerns was as these services were rolled out to more patients across the country that they are receiving safe effective care. The evidence is that they are improving.”
In August, NHS England blocked expansion plans for the application outside of London, citing patient safety concerns.
Enjoying NHE? Subscribe here to receive our weekly news updates or click here to receive a copy of the magazine!