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

Warning over status of nurses involved in NHS commissioning


Nurses involved in emerging clinical commissioning groups are being given little time and support and are being paid less than GP peers, according to an authoratative report published today.

Involving Nurses in Commissioning: How To Get in Right was due to be published by the NHS Alliance Nurses in Commissioning Network today at a conference in Manchester. It was commissioned by the Department of Health to inform commissioning reforms.

The work was led by NCN lead Ursula Gallagher, the former NHS Ealing chief nurse, and is based on evidence from senior nurses, mainly in commissioning, primary and community services, across the country.

The report says a series of problems risk the position of nurse involvement on a CCG being “seen as ‘tokenistic’ without real power and influence”. It says: “The NCN believes this would be a missed opportunity and that CCGs need to have a senior nurse, who is fully aware of the whole health system locally – someone who has the credibility and leadership skills to influence, challenge and network across the heath and social care community, and hold to account the local system.”

It notes that nurses with roles in emerging CCGs “felt that they had been given only minimal time to do this, had no proper role/job description, and didn’t feel that the training and development package or formal support and supervision that was being offered to GP colleagues was equally available for them”.

The report calls for nurses to be given “access to tailored development programmes”. Another recommendation is that: “[CCG nurses’] remuneration should reflect their role, time commitment and remit on parity with their colleagues on the CCG”. Nursing Times has previously reported evidence nurses are being paid less for the time they spend on commissioning.

The report also calls for the current PCT cluster nurse directors in “influencing and promoting nursing input into [CCGs], helping them to design roles if required”.

It suggests PCT clusters or, when they are abolished, the NHS Commissioning Board, could have a role in appointing senior nurses to CCGs.

The report says: “Since PCTs and now [strategic health authorities] have now clustered, it is not apparent that anyone at a strategic level is responsible for overseeing the development of the new tranche of nurses in commissioning roles, and support can feel very distant.

“It was agreed that many CCGs will need help to clarify the role and responsibilities of their nurse leads, and select and recruit accordingly.”

It adds: “SHA chief nurses traditionally sat as external assessor on the interview panels of all nursing directors on their patch, but it was not clear if this standardised approach to the role would exist in future.

“Whilst some may see this as unnecessary bureaucracy, there is a danger that nurses will be appointed on their clinical performance rather than benchmarked against the requirements of a strategic role, and there is a risk that they will be set up to fail.

“CCGs and ultimately patients may never experience the very real impact nurses can have on their commissioning activities if they don’t harness the skills of their nurses and other clinicians, and welcome them to the table as full and equal members.”


Readers' comments (4)

  • michael stone

    Just to check, as I'm in dange rof getting confused (as usual).

    A CCG is the 'local-level' group, which exists to buy secondary services which are needed by a local group of GP Practices, isn't it ? Those are the bodies which a 'required' to have 2 laymen, a secondary care doctor and a nurse on them - we were not told if GPs actually need to be present, or almost any other actual details of composition, if I recall correctly.

    Rushed policy announcement, fudge, obfuscation !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    'which are 'required'

    my typing gets worse !

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Commissioning is a farce take a look at the Wirral a GP consortia who have a local GP heading up the consortia with links to a private company that strangely won the primary care mental health contract, I ask you is it me or is there a conflict of interest?

    the poor client has no say and no choice whilst the GP's rake the money in, sad and disgraceful. Privatisation by stealth.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • michael stone

    Anonymous | 30-Nov-2011 8:24 pm

    GPs, as I understand it, are not supposed to be on 'both ends' of the commissioning process: the 'press releases' a few months back, implied that the role of the 2 laymen was to ensure that 'probity' issue.

    Those 2 laymen, must be 'arms length' from the GP consortia (not connected, such as accountants, etc) and so, in my opinion, must the nurse (so not a practice nurse within the consortium).

    The Goverment seems determined to avoid firming up those 'arms length/probity' requirements, and without them this commissioning process is hugely open to corruption !

    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.

Related Jobs