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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

At the same time all participants felt that K LHW would need the skills and insight to understand commissioner and provider data to be able to analyse it and make informed challenge. This would also include an understanding of the methodologies used to collect data. There was a strong recognition from commissioners that an effective K LHW would enhance their ability to commission, co-produce new services, decommission where appropriate and monitor performance and quality. Social care and health commissioners are well placed to use their procurement and contracting roles to ensure that collaborations with K LHW are built in to contracts with providers. It was identified that further work needs to be undertaken with provider organisations that so far have not been a full part of the statement of readiness exercise. This could be taken up by the K LHW Development Group in the next phase of its work programme. Organisational form Three organisational forms have emerged from participants as contenders for the structure of K LHW as a ‘body corporate’. These would benefit from more detailed exploration and development in the next phase of the development process. From the ‘Every Decision About Me, With Me’ workshop a proposal for a distributed model of K LHW where the functions of the body are embedded in existing organisations across a range of themes, issues and seldom heard groups in Kent. This could be achieved by locating K LHW champions in organisations and networking them via a core body. Existing models of practice such as the experience of Citizens Advice Bureaux may provide a template for exploring this model. A second form is a consortia model of a smaller group of local organisations with differing specialisms to deliver K LHW across the county. The third form is the more traditional hub and spoke model. This model would have a single organisation at the centre that provides the coordination of all the K LHW functions and also provides the governance role. The core would then work with separate specialist units of the organisation for the delivery of different K LHW functions. Participants recognised that it would be very difficult for one single organisation to have all the skillsets and specialisms required to deliver K LHW on their own. It was also felt that one single organisation was unlikely to be well placed to engage with the variety of seldom heard groups in Kent. It was also felt very strongly that K LHW should work in a highly coordinated way with organisations that already deliver similar functions rather than replicating these functions or competing with other organisations. The latter was felt to 26 The development of Local Healthwatch in Kent: assessing readiness for Local Healthwatch
e a risk as local people may get confused about where to go for information and signposting. Different proposals also emerged from the work regarding the legal form for the body corporate including charities, incorporated charities, community interest companies and social enterprises. Operational Issues As participants explored the operational issues for K LHW they were able to offer a variety of insights into the range of issues that would need to be considered including: • Governance of the ‘body corporate’ • Accountability to commissioners of K LHW • Management structures • Roles of paid staff • Roles of volunteers • Status of members • Relationships with affiliated organisations • Internal policies and procedures • Partnerships with other Healthwatch organisations • Selection process of people in governance positions • Representativeness Learning from the experience of LINks and the Host organisation is important for understanding the role and challenges of operating a public engagement organisation in health and social care. Participants felt that the most important starting point for developing an operational framework was to define roles, competencies, skills and knowledge required of staff, volunteers and members. Part one: key findings 27
Page 1 and 2: The development of Local Healthwatc
Page 3 and 4: Contents Executive Summary.........
Page 5 and 6: A range of suggestions and practica
Page 7 and 8: The assessment has engaged a wider
Page 9 and 10: These themes formed the basis of ke
Page 11 and 12: Stage Five: Reporting The final sta
Page 13 and 14: • A free-flow of information to e
Page 15 and 16: Key themes from the breakout sessio
Page 17 and 18: • All parties welcome informed ch
Page 19 and 20: Evolving from LINks Participants’
Page 21 and 22: K LHW will need to use a mix of com
Page 23 and 24: It was felt that a proper understan
Page 25: and K LHW will need to collaborate
Page 29 and 30: Debates During the statement of rea
Page 31 and 32: Healthwatch Development 6. The Loca
Page 33 and 34: 15. In parallel with the developmen
Page 35 and 36: 21. It is important to recognise th
Page 37 and 38: Inclusion 30. A written strategy fo
Page 39 and 40: 38. Ensure the video of the ‘Ever
Page 41 and 42: Julie Van Ruyckevelt, West Kent Pri
Page 44: The Centre for Public Scrutiny Loca

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?