BMA issues guidance on governance of GP consortia

The General Practitioners Committee (GPC) of the British Medical Association (BMA) has issued guidance on the governance of GP consortia.

The guidance attempts to provide a ‘framework’ for consortia governance that ‘resists’ using the term ‘board’ on the grounds that ‘to do so would imply the continuation of PCT boards and PCT governance arrangements.’ Instead, the consortium ‘board’ is referred to as the ‘Accountable Body!’ The guidance purports to take a new approach to the governance of commissioning through an ‘Accountable Body’ (i.e. a board!) supported by an ‘executive group’ and an ‘audit group’ [what’s new in this? Ed.]. In a somewhat bizarre demonstration that the GPC does not understand good governance, the guidance calls for a ‘lay management’ to ‘support the elected representatives (i.e. board members) of the organisation.’ So, presumably we will see consortium board members with their own ‘lay managers’ supporting them to hold consortium management to account?

Despite being somewhat lacking in its understanding of ‘good governance’ nevertheless the BMA guidance is currently the only published guidance on consortium governance currently available and, at the very least, provides a framework for discussion and improvement.

Download the BMA’s Governance of GP consortia guidance here.

The GPC has also updated its guidance on electing a consortia leadership, which is complementary to its consortia governance guidance, and this can be downloaded here.

2 Responses to BMA issues guidance on governance of GP consortia

  1. Richard Gudoi Gid'Agui says:

    The question of using in other words accountable body instead of boad of directors is to me a good gesture to define what the NHS stands for. It therefore is in the right direction to restructure even the corporate governance wording for corporate boards. History and research has shown us that corporate boards have failed to deliver of public service direction hence the lamentations we see surrounding the other stakeholders. The fraud and risk management of the NHS deliverable will be seen to be managed possibly well. I also argue that change of name wont mean anything since the roles and duties will remain the same as expected of the directors to oversee the strategic objecitves of the health service body.
    Corporate governance in public entities is still along way to come to the level of that in private sector environment. I also think that with all the attendant profiles partaining the corporate governance in NHS ,the accountability body will achieve what it wants to achieve.

    With all the respect,
    I beg to end here.

    Richard Gudoi Gid’Agui ,MSc.Audit(BCU)MBA,CIA,CFE,CGFM,CFSA, Student researcher Ph.D.Corporate governance studies in public sector.

  2. hsepilot says:

    very helpful comment Richard – many thanks for this.

    Kind regards,


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: