Lee Dillon MP raises concerns over unexplained rise in GP list cleansing

I have written to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care seeking clarification about recent changes to GP list cleansing processes and the potential impact on both patients and GP practices.

The issue was first brought to my attention by Strawberry Hill Medical Centre, and I would like to place on record my thanks to them and to the other GP practices across the constituency that have worked collaboratively to provide evidence and share their experiences.

GP practices receive funding based largely on the number of patients registered with them. To help ensure records remain accurate, NHS England operates a long-standing process known as FP69 list cleansing. Where NHS records suggest a patient may no longer be living at their registered address or eligible to remain on a practice's list, checks are carried out and patients may ultimately be removed from the register.

The concern is not that FP69 processes exist - they have been part of NHS administration for many years - but that local GPs are reporting a sudden and significant increase in activity without a clear explanation of what has changed.

Over recent weeks I have gathered information from practices across Newbury, Thatcham, Hungerford, Kintbury, Woolton Hill, and surrounding areas.

Several surgeries report a significant increase in FP69 notices and list cleansing activity compared to historic levels. In one case, a practice reported deletion flags equivalent to 36% of its patient list over the course of a year. Other practices have also reported unexpected reductions in registered patient numbers after years of stable growth.

At this stage, there may be legitimate explanations for these trends. However, GPs consistently tell me they are unclear what has changed, why activity has increased so dramatically, and what methodology NHS England is now using to identify patients for review.

There are also wider questions around continuity of care and public health. If patients are incorrectly removed from GP lists, even temporarily, there is a risk this could create barriers to accessing healthcare and maintaining accurate patient records.

GPs have also highlighted potential implications for national screening programmes. Public health bodies have previously identified lower participation rates among some communities in bowel, cervical, and breast cancer screening programmes. Accurate GP registration records play an important role in ensuring that patients receive invitations and reminders, making it important to understand whether any unintended consequences could arise from increased deregistration activity.

For these reasons, I have written to the Secretary of State seeking clarification on:

• What methodology is being used to identify patients for FP69 notices.
• Whether that methodology has changed and, if so, why.
• What consideration has been given to continuity of care and screening programmes.
• Why GP practices report that the period available to challenge FP69 notices has been reduced.
• What support is available to practices dealing with increased administrative burdens.
• What assessment has been made of the impact on GP practices and patients.

I am not drawing conclusions at this stage. My aim is simply to ensure that any changes are transparent, evidence-based, and fair.

I will continue investigating this issue closely and will provide a further update once I receive responses from the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England.