Jump to content

Recommended Posts

We've just had a letter from the Forest Hill Group Practice to say that because we now live outside the new(?) boundaries within which the practice operates, we can no longer be one of their patients and must find another doctor.


A bit of a shock after 30 years! There's been no prior warning of this and we've got 4 weeks to find another doctor, before they send our records to the health authority. Had we been away when the letter arrived, it might have only amounted to two or three weeks!


Based on a bit of research, as far as I can see if you decide to move outside of their boundary then they can do this to you without any warning, but I'm not sure they can do it without warning if you haven't actually moved. In most other circumstances GPs are required to provide prior notification of what they intend to do.


Has this happened to anyone else?


Does anyone know if they are following NHS Procedures correctly?


Zak

Look up NHS choices online you should be able to choose your GP-you haven't moved so to my understanding you should be within your right to demand to stay.

I wrote to my local MP regarding a similar matter-although they couldn't directly help (NHS=different dept) they did point me into the right direction.

30years and you get chucked off to another practise? madness- also look up the NHS southwark website as well and appeal

good luck.

I've been 8 months battling to move gp's the NHS is a mess at the moment

A GP can request removal of a patient from her/his register provided s/he has reasonable grounds for doing so and, in most situations, s/he has given the patient a warning. The warning must be given to the patient within the period of twelve months prior to the date of the GP's request to the CCG to remove the patient. The warning must inform the patient that s/he is at risk of removal and explain the reasons for this. A GP can still request a patient is removed from her/his register without a warning if:-


the reason for removal relates to the patient's change of address; or

the GP has reasonable grounds for believing that the issue of a warning would either be harmful to the physical or mental health of the patient, or put at risk the safety of people connected to the GP's practice, for example, practice staff or other patients; or


Have you moved house rather than them changing their catchment area? Ask the surgery to clarify the legal basis on which they make this request, pointing out the 4 weeks is a short time for such a major change, and if you are not satisfied with the answer I would raise your complaint with the Clinical Commissioning Group.

I've just spoken to a primary care commissioning manager at Southwark Clinical Commissioning Group ( 020 7525 9888) and she's going to get in touch with the practice to ascertain exactly what's happening.


If you're affected, then do get in touch with the CCG and flag up your concerns about the way the practice has behaved.

NewWave Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> I've been 8 months battling to move gp's the NHS

> is a mess at the moment



I moved GPs last year with no problems at all.


All I had to do was to register with another GP and provide proof of ID and my address. I didn't have to inform my old GP.


Obviously you have to be in the catchment area of the GP you want to change to.


I can't understand why it would take so long or be a battle (unless the new GP wasn't accepting new patients for some reason?)

Here are two screenshots taken today:


1. for general information, the map on the Forest Hill Group Practice website of the new boundary that has been drawn "owing to a great demand of providing [sic] medical services".


2. the landing page of the practice website on which visitors are invited to register as patients - which by implication rather undermines the validity of the basis on which current patients are being told they are to be de-registered, that is, the practice services are in great demand and can't be stretched outside the catchment area.


By any standards of good practice, FHGP appear to be failing in their duty:

a) to existing (/longstanding) patients in only giving four weeks (from date of letter [25.9.18] or receipt? unclear...) to re-register elsewhere or be unilaterally de-registered from the practice list and

b)to future patients in continuing to expand the registered numbers, thus further stretching a service already described as overstretched.

It would be interesting to see how the local GP cachements interlock. I suspect this is a tidying up exercise - when those outside the FHRGP area are excluded that will free-up space for those inside the area but not registered (but perhaps registered 'out of area' for another practice). If other practices are doing the same thing this may simply be a shuffle around. There are arguably some advantages to this - where the practice falls in strict boundaries, demographic etc. information can be more readily applied for demand forecasting. Although I suspect this may be more 'in theory' than yet applied to practice management. As there are so many locums etc. the 'continuity of care' principle is already jeopardised anyway.


My guess would be that each of us falls into the area of 2-3 practices now, giving some choice.

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> NewWave Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > I've been 8 months battling to move gp's the

> NHS

> > is a mess at the moment

>

>

> I moved GPs last year with no problems at all.

>

> All I had to do was to register with another GP

> and provide proof of ID and my address. I didn't

> have to inform my old GP.

>

> Obviously you have to be in the catchment area of

> the GP you want to change to.

>

> I can't understand why it would take so long or be

> a battle (unless the new GP wasn't accepting new

> patients for some reason?)


Our problem is the boundaries have shrunk giving us the option of only one GP we can register with -which is different from all our neighbours who moved here earlier than us...(we moved here in 2011).

In the 7 years we've been with them its been a catalogue of errors on their part, which have actually proved detrimental to our health. their ratings are appaling...We've been battling for 8 months to get taken on by the surgery our immediate neighbours are with.

nightmare!

At one level, if this is part of an effort by the practice to manage their existing patient load better, then that's something. After a few months of better appointment availability, we've gone back to "no routine appointments available in the next month", so you either need to have an urgent problem which justifies an 8am appointment (I don't) or you need to find other care.


That said, it makes no sense to me to cut off patients who have been long-standing patients of the practice, particularly if they are still registering new patients. Why not just start by only taking on new patients from within the new boundary? There must be a care issue/consistency of care issue for someone who's been seen by the same set of doctors for 30 years and then has to switch to a new practice. And 4 weeks notice is completely unreasonable - particularly since a large number of people may be looking to switch at the same time.

Zak Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've just spoken to a primary care commissioning

> manager at Southwark Clinical Commissioning Group

> ( 020 7525 9888) and she's going to get in touch

> with the practice to ascertain exactly what's

> happening.

>

> If you're affected, then do get in touch with the

> CCG and flag up your concerns about the way the

> practice has behaved.


Like Zak, I have contacted the CCG and was told that, prior to the calls received, they did not know these letters had gone out and that they were contacting FHRGP to find out what exactly is happening.

To-date, my daughter's family, who live nearby, also outside the cachement area, have not received a letter.

I have just had a call_back from CCG and they say they have asked FHRGP to withdraw the de-registrations for now until talks have taken place.

They will let us know what their reaction is to the request.

Yes, we've also been told by the Southwark Clinical Commissioning Group that they have told the surgery to "retract" the notice, which they've given to patients who are outside their practice boundary.


This of course should result in their writing round to everyone affected and informing them of the new position. However we've had no communication from them and I imagine that's the case for everyone else.


Call me a cynic, but if they were to drag their feet for long enough, then they'd probably get the result they want - which is that people will find themselves a new doctor, thinking that they've only got a month to do so before they're left without a GP.


We await their letter!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...