Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Looking at NHS Choices, based on reviews The Hambleden Clinic at Denmark Hill and 306 Medical Centre in Lordship Lane are the closest with decent reviews. The Gardens by Peckham Rye Common has shrunk it's catchment area to the surrounding streets.


306 has an online address checker which shows all of SE22 is covered and part of SE5, while Hambleden doesn't have an online check to see if you're covered.

Due to poor turn out the meeting that was schedule to take place yesterday evening did not happen. Yes it was late notice for people but you can't blame those at the surgery for trying.


Comments like littleones referring to not accessing information about the meeting until late due to being a work and such is not helpful. Most of us work and can't just drop things last minute. There's no point complaining you were not involved. You could help yourselves - call the surgery, express your interest in wanting to help in whatever way you can. MAKE yourselves heard instead of expecting others to run around doing the work for you.

I had only found out about the meeting shortly before posting on here that is was taking place - directly from the surgery. I also was unable to attend and I'm only passing on information as it is being shared.


BicBasher attached is a list of surgeries being advised to join. I have concerns that although there is "choice" I'm not convinced it will be easy to simply switch. It was already identified there wasn't a suitable surgery that could take all Dr Sarma's patients in bulk so the other surgeries are expected to absorb these patients - what if a large number wanted to register at a particular surgery over others. They wouldn't be able to cope resulting in patients being refused and having to go elsewhere which could then be a similar occurrence across the board. Patients being pushed from pillar to post. Not particularly fair.

Hi

I am sorry to hear meeting did not happen

I also like littleone didnt find out till gone 7pm when I got home

when I got access to the internet.

and Kalamity I admire your attitude call the surgery etc

but over 1600 people have read this thread so far, what if we all phoned

how would the sick get through ?

The staff knew sometime ago, so did the doctor, we could have been warned- advised

to go elsewhere before the stampede.

I am personally worried about this,I am not impressed by any of the surgeries local

[ I read the forums opinions ] I need due to medication to re-locate fast.

But how do the old oldies who are immobile fare

to quote littleone

too little too late

There is a petition running at the surgery.

We need to sign this.Staff told me no meeting last night I quote [" what meeting!"]

staff unenthusiastic, no sign or anything either in or outside surgery

this lot is going down without a fight

I'm not really sure what is going any more. A meeting was definitely attempted to be arranged last night.


Could be a case of certain members of staff are trying to drum up support whilst others are not. I really don't know.

I'm just feeding info to here as and when I hear.

lameduck Wrote:

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

> There is a petition running at the surgery.

> We need to sign this.Staff told me no meeting last

> night I quote [" what meeting!"]

> staff unenthusiastic, no sign or anything either

> in or outside surgery

> this lot is going down without a fight


Went there today and the receptionists seemed very up for a fight and keen to get the petition signed. They said they had not accepted it was a done deal, and were hopeful something could be done. My local pharmacist told me she had also been down to sign the petition (so should anyone who can get down there) and was spreading the word, so even though it's late there's still a fight.

I have been looking through NHS England's site, and came across the attached Summary Document entitled "Putting Patients First", It makes interesting reading especially the end section "What we stand for", particularly in view of the fact that we were neither consulted on nor informed about any impending closure until now when they claim it's a done deal.

Can I suggest that as well as signing the petition, we, the patients, also bombard NHS England with emails voicing our dissatisfaction with the way this closure has been handled and our worries about registering with other surgeries in the area given the poor reviews that have been written about them on this forum?

Some will notice the South London Press featured part cover of this matter on the front page of today's issue. It's not a particularly great piece of writing and doesn't cover any of the issue concerned and gives the impression the PPG had prior knowledge to no of the closing of the surgery which is certainly not the case.


The surgery and other supporters are keen to have accurate and more coverage from other publications and news avenues. If you would be interested in sharing your views and even be involved in a group picture (apparently we're more likely to get a bigger section with a picture) please drop me a PM so we can organise a suitable time for all. Obviously time is tight for all those involved but support is greatly appreciated.

Sabrina Harley Wrote:

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

> Hey everyone

>

> Found out today that when Dr Sarma retires on 31st

> of July the NHS instead of getting a new doctor to

> replace him are going to close the surgery!

> Not only that but all the remaining staff are

> being made redundant instead of being transferred

> to another surgery.

>

> There is a petition to sign on the reception desk

> and there will be a peaceful demonstration to

> appeal the closure.

>

> Please if you are a patient there, or even if

> you're not but don't agree with the closure, take

> 5 mins to pop in and sign the petition

>

> Thanks for reading

> Sabrina



Just to keep the info rolling in the right place...

Hi All

still waiting for reply to email from Tessa Jowell and Harriet Harman RE this closure, also emailed

local mayor and health authority.

seems no one is interested, and have heard nothing from James Barber.

According to S.L.Press there are 2400 on his books

Thats a lot of missplaced patients

Maybe if we all bombard these MP's who are supposed to looking after our interests

with emails. they may answer them.

the duck

Note that on the list of alternative GP practices, up first (by virtue of proximity) is the disaster that is MGMP- I'm sure Concordia/MGMP would love to plump up their numbers since, or so it would seem, patients have been leaving in their droves over the years. Hmmm.

first mate Wrote:

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

> Note that on the list of alternative GP practices,

> up first (by virtue of proximity) is the disaster

> that is MGMP- I'm sure Concordia/MGMP would love

> to plump up their numbers since, or so it would

> seem, patients have been leaving in their droves

> over the years. Hmmm.


Just to reiterate - I left MG to go to Dr Sarma and would rather have a monkey with a stick try to cure my ailments than go back there. When and if the axe falls that is the LAST place anyone who cares about their health should think of.

Hi All

recieved one answer

still waiting for Tessa Harriet and James


Dear Duck


Thank you for your email which was forwarded to me today.


Unfortunately, the Local Authority does not have control over GP's surgeries in Southwark.


Healthwatch Southwark is currently doing some work on this issue, and they may be able to offer further assistance?


http://www.healthwatchsouthwark.co.uk/


Yours sincerely



Jennifer Chambers

Investigator - Social Services

Floor 2, Hub 2

Office: 0207 525 5917

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.southwark.gov.uk

Postal Address

Southwark Council

PO Box 64529

LONDON

SE1P 5LX

The NHS has been slowly disassembled and put back together in such a confusing way that even those within the system are not quite sure who is in charge of what; so where do the powers of local GP's/CCG's stop and those of NHS England begin? Who does decide what is in the interests of local patients? I thought that the whole idea of the new system was to put more power into the hands of patients not for major decisions, like the closure of a surgery (against patient wishes) to be made by some centralised body.


Reminds me of the 'free' schools where most decisions seem to go through one person in the Govt.



First mate, I thought that it was obvious that Orwell type newspeak applies here. To use the slogan first featured in that rather boring song by John Lennon, "power to the people" means "much less power to the people".


And to continue the Lennon analogy, "imagine no possessions" means "imagine lots more possessions for the chaps who have given our party plenty of dosh".

I have been sending emails to NHS England and have today received the response below:


Thank you for your enquiry dated 12th June 2014.

In response, I would advise that you contact your local NHS England Area Team via the details below:

NHS South London Area Team

Southside

105 Victoria Street

London

SE1E 6QT

0207 932 3700

I hope this information is helpful.

Kind regards,

George Fuller

Customer Contact Centre Support Assistant

NHS England

Tel: 0300 3 11 22 33

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.england.nhs.uk

Address: NHS England, PO Box 16738, REDDITCH, B97 9PT



I have already passed this information on to James Barber via email and fully intend to start ringing NHS South London Area Team tomorrow and to keep pestering them till I get some sort of response.

In response to emails I sent to healthwatch Southwark and NHS England I've had the following in reply (from the latter via the former)


In reply to my asking why the practice was closing rather than being taken up by another GP:


Dr Sarma holds a PMS contract this is the (provision of a set of services which are specified in the actual GP contract ), which is commissioned under a local arrangement. GPs that hold a PMS contact may ask NHS England, upon retirement, to take on a partner as part of their retirement plan. This allows a single handed GP practice to be maintained in the longer term. Dr Sarma did not request to take on a partner at the East Dulwich Medical Centre, and handed back his contract to NHS England.



And in reply to why patients were being palmed off onto other practices with no say in the matter despite local information seeming to stress these other practices were over-subscribed and waiting times for appointments and/or getting phone calls answered were already excessive:


NHS England looked at three options for the contract and patient list:


whether there is sufficient capacity and interest in the local area for patients to register with neighbouring GP practices

to procure the existing patient list

to place the list under temporary arrangements


In this case, a review found that there were eleven alternate GP practices that were within 1.2 miles of East Dulwich Medical Centre. All of these practices had capacity for additional patients and wished to accept Dr Sarma?s patients.


So it would appear that the eagerness of the other practices to 'accept' a large influx of new patients was the deciding factor. Makes you wonder how 'capacity' is decided and how many patients these practices have to have before they consider themselves full.

maxxi Wrote:

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

> In response to emails I sent to healthwatch

> Southwark and NHS England I've had the following

> in reply (from the latter via the former)

>

> In reply to my asking why the practice was closing

> rather than being taken up by another GP:

>

> Dr Sarma holds a PMS contract this is the

> (provision of a set of services which are

> specified in the actual GP contract ), which is

> commissioned under a local arrangement. GPs that

> hold a PMS contact may ask NHS England, upon

> retirement, to take on a partner as part of their

> retirement plan. This allows a single handed GP

> practice to be maintained in the longer term. Dr

> Sarma did not request to take on a partner at the

> East Dulwich Medical Centre, and handed back his

> contract to NHS England.

>

>

> And in reply to why patients were being palmed off

> onto other practices with no say in the matter

> despite local information seeming to stress these

> other practices were over-subscribed and waiting

> times for appointments and/or getting phone calls

> answered were already excessive:

>

> NHS England looked at three options for the

> contract and patient list:

>

> whether there is sufficient capacity and

> interest in the local area for patients to

> register with neighbouring GP practices

> to procure the existing patient list

> to place the list under temporary arrangements

>

>

> In this case, a review found that there were

> eleven alternate GP practices that were within 1.2

> miles of East Dulwich Medical Centre. All of

> these practices had capacity for additional

> patients and wished to accept Dr Sarma?s

> patients.

>



It's a shame the reps (Sharon Fernandez and another) from NHS England that informed the PPG and presented the letter were not briefed on any of this. They were asked several times why the practice couldn't continue under a different doctor - the answer was totally evaded and certainly not offered as is here.

This is most alarming.



Is there any way to challenge/override this decision, one which seems to have been decided by stealth on technicalities and small print? Can our local politicians help in anyway? Healthcare is just as important as education but there seems less political will and drive to secure local needs for the former.

It appears that Dr Sarma operated under a specific contract which allowed him (and required him) to appoint a partner to take over his practice if he chose to retire - which is, if I understand earlier posts, the method by which he himself took up this practice.


He appears not to have done this - and since GPs are private contractors into the NHS (they are not directly employed by the NHS) there is little the NHS could have done - they don't themselves 'own' the practice, nor do they have staff they could appoint into it if Dr Sarma did not chose to continue the practice via an 'inheriting' partner.


This is not like being a doctor employed by a hospital, where when one leaves, another can be appointed.


GPs have always been private individuals contracting with the service to provide health cover - either individually (i.e. Dr Sarma) or in partnerships.


The NHS has been told by the other private contractors in the area that they have capacity and desire to absorb Dr Sarma's list. What else could they (the NHS) have done?

P68,

Fair points. I just wonder how this works. Do processes automatically swing in once the contract is finished without any prior contact/communication between the relevant parties? Is it possible that Dr Sarma was simply not across the detail of the contract? It seems odd that if there are other GP's willing and able to continue running the practice that the contractual arrangement is immutable. I guess one would have to be convinced that Dr Sarma has stated something along the lines of 'I cannot be bothered/ I don't want anyone to take over'.


Still, I am no expert on contractual law so it may well be a set in stone affair where nothing can be done...shame though.

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

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • 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.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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