Feedback from the NASGP Conference 1999
	Foreword Conference Evaluation Questionnaire

Also available in Adobe Acrobat format  conference_1999_feedback.pdf 71kb.

Delegates were asked to complete 15 questions, favouring one of 5 responses ( strongly agree ,in between, not sure, in between, strongly disagree ) and making additional comments if they wished to do so.

60 questionnaires were returned. The following interpretation of the data displays the most frequent response to each question and gives examples of delegates' comments, where pertinent. A more detailed breakdown of all responses is attached at the end of the document.

Qu.1 The NASGP has directly or indirectly improved my lifestyle as a GP.

78% of respondents strongly agreed with this statement. Amongst the comments received, delegates stated that they now felt less professionally isolated and 'respectable'. In broad terms, it was felt the NASGP had also provided political and financial benefits.

Qu.2 The NASGP has directly or indirectly improved the quality of care that I give to my patients.

The response to this statement was more varied with 23% stating they strongly agreed but the majority ( 47% ) being 'not sure'.

Of the few comments made, it was felt that the influence of the NASGP on patient care may be seen in the future with the increased use of the CPD log book and the revalidation process.

Qu.3 The NASGP has improved my financial well-being.

58% of respondents agreed strongly with this statement. The NASGP had been seen to campaign for better locum rates via the GPC. On a more individual level, one delegate reported the NASGP had provided greater confidence in financial negotiations.

Qu.4 The NASGP's role in the next few years will be more important than ever.

An impressive 85% responded with strong agreement to this statement. Of the few delegates who commented, many felt that the Non-Principal would play an important part in the changes facing Primary Care and the NASGP would continue to act as a 'Pressure Group'.

Qu.5 The term 'independent' used in our philosophy is better than 'non-principal'.

There was a spread of answers: 53% strongly agreed, 27% were not sure, 8% strongly disagreed. Positive comments suggested the term might improve status but most comments were made by those who had reservations. These included concerns that the term might be confused with private GPs or even those principals who consider themselves 'independent'. It was felt the word would appear to exclude some non-principals 'attached' to practices and one delegate cautioned a change of terminology since we as a group are now well- recognised by all other bodies as 'non-principals'.

Qu.6 The NASGP's use of the word 'independent' will not alienate GPs who have a contract of employment such as assistants or retainers.

Again, a spread of responses. 30% strongly agreed, 43% were not sure and 18% disagreed. Most delegates failed to add to their comments made in the previous answers.

Qu.7 The NASGP should concentrate on setting up and supporting non-principal groups rather than individual non-principals.

42% agreed or strongly agreed with this statement; 37% were not sure. With sufficient resources, it was felt both should continue to happen. Others felt this was duplicating work and that the group should be the focus of support, with NASGP membership fees being payable by a group rather than the individual. However, one delegate was concerned there are too many NPs who do not attend their NP group to ensure fair representation with this model.

Qu.8 The NASGP newsletter should be produced more frequently.

27% agreed, 38% were not sure and 32% disagreed! Generally, it was felt that the present arrangement was OK, to avoid publication ' for the sake of it '. One delegate would like to see articles relating to Council decisions, another suggested greater use of the website.

Qu.9 Non-Principal Groups provide the most logical means of providing representation for local non-principals.

63% agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. There were a few important comments. The NASGP should remain the 'umbrella' for this process and perhaps look at 'standardising' groups in terms of educational content etc. ( This will be difficult ).There are also concerns that group membership and activity across the country is patchy and in no way encompasses all NPs.

Qu.10 LMCs offer the best potential for local representation of independent GPs.

40% of delegates were not sure this was so, with a similar number in overall agreement. Some felt statements made in Qu's 9 and 10 to be mutually exclusive, but that until the LMCs were seen to be truly representing NPs then they should not be relied upon to do so ie the NP group model needed to continue and coexist in time? Only one delegate commented that the LMCs could only represent us with our support.

Qu.11 Because we have run out of cash, producing the next NASGP Handbook as a few chapters every several months in A4 hole-punched format is a really good idea.

70% agreed or strongly agreed. It was suggested the website could publish the document as well and the handbook could be available only on demand or for a small fee ( the comments of only a handful ).

Qu.12 The NASGP risks spoiling appropriate representation for independent GPs if it competes with LMCs in offering representation.

45% of respondents were not sure, while 30% disagreed. It was felt that the two groups are complimentary and could remain so, with the NASGP acting as a 'pressure group'. It would be important to differentiate roles and make NPs aware of these differences.

Qu.13 The NASGP should only support and represent locums.

88% of respondents disagreed with this!

Qu.14 The NASGP membership fee could justifiably be raised to £50 per annum.

57% agreed or strongly agreed and only 12% disagreed.

Qu.15 As above - raised to £75

58% disagreed or strongly disagreed and only 10% agreed.

Where an increase is necessary, pleas were made for reduced rates for those working limited hours and those belonging to the BMA ( another 'trade-union' ). It was felt members should know where the money was being spent.

Apparently, NASGP fees are not at present recognised as tax-deductible.

70 questionnaires were evaluated. Not all delegates completed the questionnaire fully and this will be made clear for individual answers.

Unfortunately, the layout of the front page of the questionnaire was poor, leading to confusion for some delegates in answering questions. This has inevitably led to some loss of data.

About the conference as a whole

1. Conference promotion and advertisement : 55% of delegates rated this good and 19% excellent. No delegates responded with below average answers.

2. Conference organisation : 60% good and 27% excellent responses were obtained. 2 delegates thought organisation was poor.

3. Choice of venue ( geographically ) : 49% of delegates thought this was good. 29% felt the choice was average or below.

4. Quality of hotel venue : 59% of respondents rated the hotel as good or average. 36% felt it was poor/bad.

5. Overall value for money : 83% of delegates felt this had been good or average.

6. Amount of sponsorship : 80% replied this was good or average. 9 delegates failed to reply.

About the conference programme

1. Saturday morning exhibition and optional activities : 75% of delegates felt this had been good or average. 10 failed to reply.

2. Speech from GMC representative : 76% replied this was good or average.

3. Future GP debate : 54% of delegates replied this had been excellent, 29% that it was good.

4. Image workshop : 61% thought this good or average, 15% excellent. 15 delegates failed to reply.

5. After dinner speaker rang: responses ranged evenly from excellent through to average (78% ) of delegates. 14 failed to reply.

6. Prof. Pringle's speech : this was very well received with 60% rating it excellent and 28% good.

7. Question time : 27 delegates did not give answers. Of the rest, 95% felt it to be good/excellent.

8. Richard Fieldhouse's speech : dwindling numbers of delegates by this stage! 25 replied, all rating it above average.

Workshop sessions

Not all delegates gave full responses to the evaluation of workshop sessions. 14 workshops were evaluated. In view of the small sample numbers ( in brackets ), the data has been recorded in a qualitative way as follows:

Primary Care Act Opportunities -- all respondents rated this session excellent through to average. ( 15 )

PCGs and how to get involved -- most rated this good ( 7 )

LMCs and NPs -- this was rated good to excellent ( 17 )

Learning on-line -- just under half rated this good to excellent but a small number reported a poor response ( oversubscribed and need one-to-one time on-line ) ( 25 )

Health info on-line -- mostly rated good ( 9 )

Independent financial advice -- rated good to excellent ( 5 )

MDU workshop -- rated average by the majority ( spread from excellent to poor ) ( 13 )

Stress busting -- almost all rated good to excellent ( 21 )

Learning with games -- again rated by almost all excellent or good ( 15 )

So you want to be a partner ? -- rated good by the majority ( 19 )

Portfolio learning /EBM -- all rated good to excellent ( 16 )

Revalidation -- almost all rated excellent or good ( 12 )

Retainer scheme -- rated good or excellent ( 5 )

Setting up an NP group -- rated excellent or good ( 4 )

Conference questionnaire - longer answers

Delegates were asked to provide longhand feedback on a number of topics as follows:

1. Of those delegates who replied, 39% had attended last year's conference.

2. 98% felt there should be a conference next year.

3. Opinions were wide-ranging on the subject of where to hold the next conference. These were inevitably influenced by proximity to delegates' homes. The majority view ( of 56% ) was to provide a venue in Central England. This was expanded by some delegates to include the NW of England. The remainder of replies were spread evenly across the country with 3 delegates asking for Scotland.

Delegates had been asked to state whether Bristol would be a suitable venue. Unfortunately, only 17 commented, with 15 in favour. Similarly, only a handful commented whether they would be happy for 'In Any Event' to organise the next conference ; all replies were favourable.

4. On the subject of preferred cost ( for 2 days and overnight accommodation ), 62.5% wished to keep the cost at £150. 29% were prepared to pay more, the remainder less.

5. 89% of delegates were happy for the conference to continue to be held over a weekend.

6. Few delegates replied to the question " Do you think the conference should be about different topics ( and if so what ? ) ". Generally it was felt the content of the conference should remain 'topical' and dependent upon relevant issues 'hot' around the time of the next conference.

7. Delegates were finally asked to make constructive comments about the format of the conference and expand upon any other issues which might help to influence subsequent conferences.

• hotel and catering
  • standard of rooms and service needs to be better
  • improve liaison between organisers and reception staff
  • re delegate arrival
    • consider interesting location - delegates bring family who need to be entertained!
    • pleas for decaffeinated tea and coffee!
    • after - dinner dancing
•  

• conference admin
  • ensure all delegates receive details/maps etc in good time
  • consider paper and pen in conference pack
  • add speakers' email details to those outlined in packs
  • need a defined ' Conference Welcome Speech
  • think about layout of main conference hall - those at the back need to be able to see and hear

• conference content
  • most seem happy with format
  • some would like more time for networking
  • drop the early evening slot
  • one request for 'new faces' at the Sunday morning Question Time

• workshops
  • need to limit participants - suggest sign up and receive a ticket ( no more to be allocated when full )
  • ? fewer eg one longer workshop each day and/or consider repeating to accommodate numbers
  • produce beforehand a workshop handout (of salient points) for each session to be added to conference pack
  • o consider a plenary session after fewer workshops for all delegates to attend
  • o could outcome of some workshops be used to influence NASGP Council policy?

Finally, a number of delegates suggested topics for workshops. It should be noted that some of these topics were covered at the first Conference. Rather than repeat these, perhaps some of these issues could be covered on the NASGP website?

CME - how to interest your NP group
PLPs and keeping up to date with learning
How to be a locum / tax affairs etc
Financial planning - basic and advanced
Negotiation skills
Portfolio careers

One delegate suggested interim events organised by the NASGP perhaps covering some of these topics !!

This document, I hope, is a fairly accurate reflection of the opinions of the delegates. All the comments need to be taken on board by the Council and by the organisers of the next conference. I can be contacted if any clarification or further detail is needed at lcsym@hotmail.com

Lorrie Symons