Unfortunately the LMCs and GPC will always be perceived as a semi-tradeunion
for GPs. PCGs are more than that and contain at least a third of people who
have no desire at all to be attached to such bodies. A PCG standing
conference will have to be fully independent to have any respect.
-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Midgley <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 19 December 1998 19:08
Subject: Re: a national voice for PCGs?
>[log in to unmask],Net wrote at 19:16 on 15/12/98
>about "a national voice for PCGs?":
>-----------------------------
>>Why cannot we have a standing PCGs conference with delegates from all
>boards
>>mandated on resolutions, cf GPC? There is at present no voice which can
>>fulfill that function-the NAPC cannot. Such a standing conferemce
>would have
>>considerable influence. Maybe that is why the GPC has not suggested it.
>-----------------------------
>Is it actually for anything that the GPC is not already there for?
>
>PCG Boards should avoid isolating themselves from their LMCs, and
>should share at least some of what they are doing with their GPC
>representatives to ensure we are either heading in the same
>direction, or at least know where conflicts of interests are
>appearing.
>
>I think actually loose linkages between the IM&T task groups/IT
>departments and the Clinical Gov departments of various PCGs have
>more to offer us, but I see them as more swaps for solutions and
>work than as bodies to pass resolutions.
>
>Duplicating GPC would weaken us, dragging its members into
>communication with PCGs will strengthen us.
>--- OffRoad 1.9r registered to Adrian Midgley
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|