The development of Local Healthwatch in Kent Part one: key findings

Things that were likely to damage the credibility of K LHW included:
• A narrow focus on single issues
• Being dominated by personal issues or agendas
• A lack of evidence
• Weak or distant relationships with commissioners and decision makers
• Failure to follow up or feedback on work
• Unrepresentativeness
• Tokenism
Participants were able to identify a range of barriers that would need to be
overcome to ensure K LHW is successful. Themes included:
• How local people may perceive K LHW in relation to previous health and
social care engagement initiatives such as LINks and Community Health
Councils. They may have particular associations with these groups and
may question the longevity of this new organisation
• The complexity of the health and social care systems
• The challenge of working at a local level across a county with the scale and
complexity of Kent
• The pace of change
Local expectations for K LHW are high amongst informed stakeholders.
They recognise that the transition to K LHW provides an opportunity to stop
and reflect on learning around public engagement and apply this to the new
organisation. It is important that the development process and the early
months of K LHW activity delivers concrete evidence of the potential of the
local organisation. Clear communications and definitions of role, purpose and
priorities are essential to properly manage expectations.
18
The development of Local Healthwatch in Kent: assessing readiness for Local Healthwatch