Medical verification update

[Conor O'Gorman]

Overview from Shooting Times:

A chance to improve the licensing system - ShootingUK

BASC update on ShootCert:

Firearms medical certificates with ShootCert

BASC works with ShootCert to provide a trusted, quality medical verification service for firearms grant and renewal applicants.

basc.org.uk

 

[Benelli m2]

Does this mean that all GPS no longer doing this?

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Does this mean that all GPS no longer doing this?

Most GPs are still doing medical verification but the number not doing so anymore is increasing. The following article explains the wider context.

A chance to improve the licensing system - ShootingUK

ShootingUK News - A chance to improve the licensing system

www.shootinguk.co.uk

 

[tonyshooter]

Conor,

Do you think that it may soon be the case that we go straight to the likes of ShootCert / etc, without contact our GP.

Thanks.

Tony

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

Conor,

Do you think that it may soon be the case that we go straight to the likes of ShootCert / etc, without contact our GP.

Thanks.

Tony

I hope not. The opposite is what we are lobbying for. That all GPs take part. Because GP markers are not mandatory, police forces require medical verification at every renewal. Furthermore, there is no consistency of approach for repeated record checks, with various forces requiring checks from 10 to 30 years. If GP involvement in firearms licensing were mandatory, this unnecessary and costly repeated process could be discontinued, not to mention strengthening the argument for longer certificate life.

 

[Greenmist]

I think if it were made mandatory, the applicant would bear the brunt of any displeasure and simply be marked as unsuitable to have an fac, I doubt the police would push the issue of proof. Unfortunately Conor, the time to fight this has long passed

 

[Dickie]

I hope not. The opposite is what we are lobbying for. That all GPs take part. Because GP markers are not mandatory, police forces require medical verification at every renewal. Furthermore, there is no consistency of approach for repeated record checks, with various forces requiring checks from 10 to 30 years. If GP involvement in firearms licensing were mandatory, this unnecessary and costly repeated process could be discontinued, not to mention strengthening the argument for longer certificate life.

I don't understand how apart from a grant how forces can ask for 10 -30 years when 5 years ago it was satisfactory for a renewal surely then if they had the correct information they only need the last 5 years?

 

[tonyshooter]

I hope not. The opposite is what we are lobbying for. That all GPs take part. Because GP markers are not mandatory, police forces require medical verification at every renewal. Furthermore, there is no consistency of approach for repeated record checks, with various forces requiring checks from 10 to 30 years. If GP involvement in firearms licensing were mandatory, this unnecessary and costly repeated process could be discontinued, not to mention strengthening the argument for longer certificate life.

Thank you

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

I think if it were made mandatory, the applicant would bear the brunt of any displeasure and simply be marked as unsuitable to have an fac, I doubt the police would push the issue of proof. Unfortunately Conor, the time to fight this has long passed

GPs are not being asked for their opinion. They are being asked to compare the applicant's medical notes against a tick box list of relevant medical conditions. If the placement of markers were part of the NHS contract it would be mandatory for GPs to add the markers. Ideally that would include medical verification and a set fee and process to be included in the firearms licensing process but let's start with the markers.

 

[Liveonce]

GPs are not being asked for their opinion. They are being asked to compare the applicant's medical notes against a tick box list of relevant medical conditions.

Yes and no Conor, last question on page 4 looks to give them scope to put what they like about the applicant, hardly tick in box is it?

 

[Greenmist]

GPs are not being asked for their opinion. They are being asked to compare the applicant's medical notes against a tick box list of relevant medical conditions. If the placement of markers were part of the NHS contract it would be mandatory for GPs to add the markers. Ideally that would include medical verification and a set fee and process to be included in the firearms licensing process but let's start with the markers.

I totally agree with the marker system, I'll also expect that once an approved marker system is in place, the medical report will only be necessary on initial grant or when changing GP, hopefully BASC will push for this

 

[Liveonce]

However just adding the marker to become part of the NHS contract, is of no value if the GPs are not contracted to work with the police should the applicant go on to be inflicted with one of the relevant medical conditions.
Which then also brings into the question how frequently a firearms owner visits their GP, annual checkup?
For many I bet may not visit during the five year life of a certificate. I know my last visit was in 2020 and I renew my certificates next year. £500 GP initial report to include annual check up, then £100+ a year, every year after five years.

What long term impact will GP engagement and soon probably full cost recovery of applications have on the future of shooting? Home Office statistics show it in decline now.

Unless being part of the GP contract makes it free, then may be we should be careful what we wish for.

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

I totally agree with the marker system, I'll also expect that once an approved marker system is in place, the medical report will only be necessary on initial grant or when changing GP, hopefully BASC will push for this

Yes, see BASC's response to last year's Home Office consultation for detailed considerations around medical involvement in firearms licensing.

https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/BASC-response-to-Home-Office-firearms-consultation-final.pdf

 

[Conor O'Gorman]

However just adding the marker to become part of the NHS contract, is of no value if the GPs are not contracted to work with the police should the applicant go on to be inflicted with one of the relevant medical conditions.
Which then also brings into the question how frequently a firearms owner visits their GP, annual checkup?
For many I bet may not visit during the five year life of a certificate. I know my last visit was in 2020 and I renew my certificates next year. £500 GP initial report to include annual check up, then £100+ a year, every year after five years.

What long term impact will GP engagement and soon probably full cost recovery of applications have on the future of shooting? Home Office statistics show it in decline now.

Unless being part of the GP contract makes it free, then may be we should be careful what we wish for.

The Home Office response to last year's firearms licensing consultation is pending and that will be relevant, as will the work of the Home Office firearms licensing fees working group when that resumes.

 

[Jimbob39]

I need to do my renewal, certs expire in late December. Given the sorry state of my local GP practice for getting seen with medical issues etc I feel compelled to get shoot cert to do it for me. Do they hassle the GP or access the info themselves and leave the practice to do more urgent work like help fix injured or dying people? Leicestershire and last variations etc have been awfully slow due to lack of staff so want to get it moving pronto!

 

[Liveonce]

I need to do my renewal, certs expire in late December. Given the sorry state of my local GP practice for getting seen with medical issues etc I feel compelled to get shoot cert to do it for me. Do they hassle the GP or access the info themselves and leave the practice to do more urgent work like help fix injured or dying people? Leicestershire and last variations etc have been awfully slow due to lack of staff so want to get it moving pronto!

They may be able to access some of your medical records online, like you can also do but they would need your authority and the registered GP authority as your registered GP is the data controller under GDPR.
However that would not include access to any lloyd George paper type records if you have any, depending on your age and what your police force require which looks to differ from force to force, ie 10year, 30year and life seem to be common differences.
I would try your registered GP before any third party GP for the report.

 

[Jimbob39]

They may be able to access some of your medical records online, like you can also do but they would need your authority and the registered GP authority as your registered GP is the data controller under GDPR.
However that would not include access to any lloyd George paper type records if you have any, depending on your age and what your police force require which looks to differ from force to force, ie 10year, 30year and life seem to be common differences.
I would try your registered GP before any third party GP for the report.

Thank you. It may not speed the process up or put any less burden on the Surgery then?

 

[Liveonce]

Thank you. It may not speed the process up or put any less burden on the Surgery then?

The surgery under GDPR have up to 30days to reply to the third party GP, and under exceptional circumstances even longer, but the need to justify the exceptional circumstances. As to less burden they probably have to do as much work to supply the third party GP with your records as they do to complete the report, assuming they will do the report.

If you can drop in to your GP practice and have a chat with the receptionist and see what they say then make your decision. Mine has never been quick but have always completed the report and you are dealing directly with your GP rather than a third party in the middle.

 

[Jimbob39]

The surgery under GDPR have up to 30days to reply to the third party GP, and under exceptional circumstances even longer, but the need to justify the exceptional circumstances. As to less burden they probably have to do as much work to supply the third party GP with your records as they do to complete the report, assuming they will do the report.

If you can drop in to your GP practice and have a chat with the receptionist and see what they say then make your decision. Mine has never been quick but have always completed the report and you are dealing directly with your GP rather than a third party in the middle.

I was under the impression the company could access your records etc and so the leg work was done by them. I’ll try the surgery first and see what they say. Thank you.

 

[Liveonce]

I was under the impression the company could access your records etc and so the leg work was done by them. I’ll try the surgery first and see what they say. Thank you.

medical records are very private and access is strictly controlled, even a hospital can not see your GP records, which is why when discharged from hospital you still get a paper discharge letter for your GP.

This may help

Your data

NHS Digital manages data for the NHS and social care. We keep patient data safe, and protect it from misuse.

digital.nhs.uk