http://www.wales.gov.uk/keypubassemstandconduct2/content/report-annexa-e.pdf

Strictly Private and Confidential

Reference: C049-05

Report to the Committee on Standards of Conduct by the Commissioner for
Standards following his Formal Investigation of the complaint by representatives of
the Pencoed Medical Centre in respect of Janice Gregory AM

1. Background to the complaint

1.1 The partners at the Pencoed Medical Centre wrote to the Standards Committee
Secretariat on 15 March 2005 (Annex 1) to complain about what they described
as:

‘defamatory public comments she (Janice Gregory AM) made in the
press about the Doctors at Pencoed Medical Centre’

[...]

2. The potential complaint

2.1 In the letter of 15 March 2005, the Pencoed Medical Centre referred to an
article in the Bridgend Post of 10 March 2005 (Annex 2) concerning the
installation of a new digital telephone exchange by NEG at the Practice. They
claimed that Janice Gregory AM had made ‘outrageous accusations’ in this
article that the Doctors at the Centre were ‘making a fast buck’ and were on
to a ‘nice little earner’ from their patients using the revenue raised by using
the associated 0870 number.

2.2 The letter from the Centre claimed that the Doctors involved were ‘NOT
pocketing a penny of any revenue raised by the use of the 0870 number’.
It also claimed that Janice Gregory had not seen any of the details of the
contract with NEG (the telecoms company involved) and that she had not
contacted the Medical Centre before making her statement. It said that:
‘Her comments are based on assumptions and hearsay that have no
basis in fact. That she can mislead the public by making inaccurate
and defamatory public statements about hard working local doctors
without having seen any of the facts is a cause for great concern
and deserves a public apology’.

[...]

4.4 The Pencoed Practice decided to install Surgery Line for both its Pencoed and
Llanharan Centres after an online patient satisfaction questionnaire highlighted
the serious difficulties patients were experiencing in getting through to the
surgeries, especially during the busy early morning period. One consequence
was that the telephone numbers for both surgeries changed to 0870 numbers.
The Practice explained in its communications with patients that this was not an
expensive premium rate number, although it would cost a higher rate per
minute (6.73 pence per minute) compared with the usual BT (and other
providers’) charge (4.2 pence per minute) and that the Practice would receive
back from NEG 2p per call. The Practice also advised patients in its
communications that despite this higher cost per minute the fact that calls
should not last so long and that patients would not have to phone a number of
times to get what they wanted would mitigate the extra potential costs.

Costs and benefits for the Practice

4.5 The Practice told me that it had taken the decision to use the NEG Surgery Line
system after considerable research. The Practice claims to be proactive in its
relationship with patients and had not relied solely on the on-line patient
satisfaction questionnaire for its information about the dissatisfaction with the
old telephone system, but had used information coming directly from its daily
contact with patients. NEG had originally suggested that the system had the
potential to be a net revenue generator but the Practice had made it clear to
NEG that as an 'ethical' organisation its motivation for installing a new system
was to provide a better service for patients rather than to generate income.

[...]

7.3 I have concluded that Janice Gregory has, as a result of her conduct, breached
the Code of Conduct for Assembly Members in respect of her ‘Public Duty’ - in
that she did not take adequate steps to check the facts about the financial
arrangements that applied to the installation of Surgery Line at the Pencoed
Medical Centre before commenting on those arrangements in a press article in
the Bridgend Post of 10 March 2005. She repeated and elaborated on those
comments in a further article in the Bridgend Post on 30 March 2005.

Much more at the url above.

idb wrote on May 3^rd, 2006 at 2:36am:

Clearly someone needs the help of a Professor of Semantics ...

They aren't receiving a penny, but in fact two. Just a moment - per call, or per minute?

Do the doctors in question also pay NEG 6.73 pence a minute [+ vat] for their outgoing calls? I suspect not.

And the old bollocks that a more expensive tariff enables people to communicate faster - surely only if they are so manic about call charges as to talk faster

And where did they earn the right to present false evidence, namely call charges of 4.2p per minute [plus the VAT that NEG-sponsored rhetoric always seems to omit] from BT and other providers for the old number. Is this possibly perjury?

As for her public duty, if she had asked them for detailed info about the financial details in question, one imagines that she would have been told it was none of her business ...

Quote:

The document says that NEG suggested that the system could be a "net revenue generator." The 'ethical' practice decided that this would have been inappropriate. So if the practice isn't profitting from extra revenue, where is it going then? Afterall, the caller still pays the same charge. Is it the communications provider who keeps this 'extra revenue' due to the noble ethics of the surgery in question?

Quote from Dave: (sorry I don't know how to put the quote in a box)

The document says that NEG suggested that the system could be a "net revenue generator." The 'ethical' practice decided that this would have been inappropriate. So if the practice isn't profitting from extra revenue, where is it going then? Afterall, the caller still pays the same charge. Is it the communications provider who keeps this 'extra revenue' due to the noble ethics of the surgery in question?

In my view it idoes not make the blindest bit of difference who is profiting - somebody is and the patient is being ripped off. The doctor may not pocket any direct per minute revenue from the 0870/0844 calls, but he/she got a new telephone system installed at the patients' expense.  This is the thin end of the wedge - by the same token should patients contribute to the cost of buying new blood pressure meters, computers or paperclips for the practice?

And doesn't this "ethical practice" have any compunction about people without their own phones (likely to be elderly, low-income) having to pay exorbitant charges for calling the practice from payphones?

It is a shame this thread has not been read by more people. Their website http://pencoedmedical.co.uk/pencoedmedical/news.htm

offers an "explanation" for the use of the NGN full of misleading claims.

What is most galling is that they seem to be happy to bask in their notoriety, proudly proclaiming "The most visited GP website?"  Let's hope those visiting the site contact them (bv e-mail or fax- where they do offer geographical numbers) to condemn both the use of NGNs and the hounding of an elected politician trying to defend some of the people who elected her