Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Commissioning leaders admit uncertainty about nurse role

  • 6 Comments

GP commissioners have admitted continuing uncertainty about the role of nurses on clinical commissioning groups.

In the summer the government announced each CCG, which will take over commissioning of most care from primary care trusts in April 2013, had to have a nurse on its governing body.

However, leaders of several emerging clinical commissioning groups told Nursing Times that – while they had a nurse on their board – they had not decided whether they would have voting or decision rights.

NHS Alliance chair Michael Dixon, who represents many clinical commissioners, acknowledged there was uncertainty about the nurse’s role. He said it would be different to member practices, as the practices would get to agree “which nurses and consultants they have on the board”.

Another senior NHS commissioning source said there was still confusion about whether nurses from local providers can sit on CCG boards, and whether they should have a non-executive governance role, or an executive role in developing services.

The source said the DH may still create a process for allocating nurses or hospital doctors to CCG boards, rather than allowing them to choose their own, but this had not been finally decided.

  • 6 Comments

Readers' comments (6)

  • Just another way of trying to keep nurses subservient really :(

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    'However, leaders of several emerging clinical commissioning groups told Nursing Times that – while they had a nurse on their board – they had not decided whether they would have voting or decision rights.'

    'they had not decided whether they would have voting or decision rights' !!!!!!

    WHAT !!!!!!!!

    If you are appointed to the board as a requirement, OF COURSE YOU HAVE VOTING RIGHTS !

    Those 'new rules' were muddled - but that question, beggars belief !

    But those rules were abysmally designed, and quite hard to work with, or to rationalise.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Absolutely agree with you on this one Michael. What a joke. It just shows what a weak position we are trying to fight from really, doesn't it?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    There is a 'statutory requirement' to have a nurse on these boards.

    So, perhaps REFUSING TO SIT unless you get to vote, would sort it !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Michael, ooh, now that is a damn fine idea sir! Haha!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    There was a requirement for 2 laymen, a secondary care doctor, and a nurse, to be on those boards.

    Logically, all of those people should be both fully independent of any GP for whom the boar dis commissioning secondary services, and there to represent a viewpoint DIFFERENT from that of those GPs - of course, all of these people get to vote.

    Mind you, it isn't clear how the nurse and doctor get chosen - in my opinion, they cannot work for anybody who is providing any secondary services (although the claims about what nurses could sit, seem very illogical).

    It is all confused, fudged and mis-represented, this new system ! With large 'cover up' aspects (of intention), as well !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.