The development of Local Healthwatch in Kent Part one: key findings
The development of Local Healthwatch in Kent Part one: key findings
The development of Local Healthwatch in Kent Part one: key findings
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
• All parties welcome <strong>in</strong>formed challenge from the patient and service user<br />
perspective<br />
• It will need to be able to work with and champion diverse groups from<br />
across <strong>Kent</strong><br />
• K LHW will need to be visible and accessible through clear communication<br />
and effective brand<strong>in</strong>g<br />
• It will need to be able to establish sophisticated and robust relationships<br />
with commissi<strong>one</strong>rs and decision makers based on mutual respect and an<br />
appreciation <strong>of</strong> the different roles that each stakeholder plays<br />
• K LHW will need to work <strong>in</strong> a transparent and open way<br />
• It will need to be able to demonstrate and evidence it’s impact on health<br />
and social care services<br />
For some participants their vision <strong>of</strong> K LHW focused on what it might prevent,<br />
<strong>of</strong>ten cit<strong>in</strong>g the example <strong>of</strong> Mid-Staffordshire Hospital and the need for a<br />
strong patient voice when th<strong>in</strong>gs start to go wrong. <strong>The</strong>y had a particular<br />
concern with issues <strong>of</strong> patient safety and welcomed the potential <strong>of</strong> K LHW<br />
to scrut<strong>in</strong>ise and highlight concerns.<br />
<strong>The</strong> credibility <strong>of</strong> K LHW was an important concern for many participants. If<br />
K LHW was not credible then participants felt that its effectiveness would be<br />
limited. Credibility would need to be established early on <strong>in</strong> the design stages.<br />
<strong>The</strong> <strong>key</strong> features <strong>of</strong> a credible K LHW were:<br />
• Independence<br />
• Good governance<br />
• <strong>The</strong> quality <strong>of</strong> relationships it is able to develop with commissi<strong>one</strong>rs,<br />
decision makers and providers<br />
• A skilled and competent team <strong>of</strong> staff and volunteers<br />
• <strong>The</strong> ability to present a range <strong>of</strong> views and voices <strong>of</strong> local people<br />
• An understand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> the health and social care commission<strong>in</strong>g processes<br />
and decision mak<strong>in</strong>g timetables<br />
• <strong>The</strong> ability to present data and f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs <strong>in</strong> an effective and <strong>in</strong>fluential way<br />
• Accessibility to patients, service users and the public across <strong>Kent</strong><br />
• Clarity <strong>of</strong> communications with the public and stakeholders<br />
• Transparency <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternal processes, prioritisation, decision mak<strong>in</strong>g and<br />
impact<br />
• Seek<strong>in</strong>g and respond<strong>in</strong>g to feedback on the <strong>development</strong> and work <strong>of</strong><br />
K LHW<br />
<strong>Part</strong> <strong>one</strong>: <strong>key</strong> f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs 17