Consider the rural location of medical practice

Dear Editor

I would like to comment on NHS Forth Valley’s statement, as reported in the Observer, on their intention to withdraw provision of a salaried GP at Aberfoyle and Buchlyvie medical centres, where I am a patient.

Firstly, they are indeed correct when they say that the salaried GP was employed and funded by the health board, so it would have been more accurate for the article to refer to ‘withdrawal of provision’ rather than ‘withdrawal of funding’ - although the effect is the same!

Secondly, their statement that the salaried doctor arrangement “was put in place at a time when the Aberfoyle Practice was run by a singlehanded GP” is inaccurate.

This was not the case: on paper there were two separate practices but the two GPs concerned at that time worked as one, with patients being able to access GPs and the dispensing service in either Aberfoyle or Buchlyvie.

The practices were only merged, at the behest of NHS Forth Valley, last year. It is true that from 2004 GPs no longer had responsibility for out-ofhours care.

However, at that time, following a review, the health board decided to maintain the salaried GP provision as it was deemed essential for our practice, and for the past 14 years have continued to take this view.

All that has changed in the past few years is that since 2014, with the loss of the Aberfoyle dispensary and other reductions in services, access to GPs at the Aberfoyle Practice has been halved – and is now being further reduced to just a third of what it was.

As I understand it, the practice is not comparable to any other in the area due to the geographical area it covers (200 square miles) and the fact it has to operate across two sites. Moreover, it is a designated remote and rural practice given its location and distance from secondary care sites.

Catherine Love Aberfoyle