99. Evidence submitted by University College
London Hospital Foundation Trust PPI Forum (PPI 75)
WHY HAVE PPI FORUMS NOT BEEN MORE SUCCESSFUL
What exactly was the brief from government?
Was this just a window dressing exercise? If so it was an astonishing
waste of the best part of £90 million of public money spent
on a badly thought out administrative design. Far too many civil
servants were employed to support and facilitate voluntary workers,
but in many cases they treated these people with contempt, patronised
them, refused them cooperation, made official complaints which
took months to resolve, and generally tried to tie up Forum members
in their red tape and lengthy time wasting procedures.
Why were there two groups of civil servants—those
who worked for the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement,
and the FSOs—Forum Support Organisations, when one properly
organised group could have done whatever might have been required...This
has wasted more time and resources unnecessarily than anything
else to do with PPIFs. Selective pieces of information would be
sent from CPPIH directly, but the rest sent on to FSOs and then
on again to Forum members—wasting time and postage.
Right at the beginning of the UCLH PPI Forum,
exactly three years ago, we asked for leaflets to be distributed
throughout local libraries, doctors surgeries, all community centres,
(including those of other nationalities). This has never been
done. This has deprived the public of knowing of the Forums' existence,
certainly in Camden with a large mixed community. When Meetings
in Public have been held, Forum members have had to distribute
leaflets/posters to these places, because the public are unaware
of the work we do, attendances have been poor.
The UCLH PPI Forum has had additional problems
achieving cooperation from the Trust. This status was not yet
confirmed when we began working with them, but they were already
planning their own Members' Council, which they feel more comfortable
with, and it has been a huge uphill struggle getting any information
of any hospital initiatives, let alone invitations to be involved,
other than the barest minimum. One has even been given only 24
hours notice to attend PEAT (Patient Environment Action Team)
inspections, which are certainly planned by the Trust team some
weeks/months in advance. It was made very plain from the beginning
that we were considered completely unnecessary to the well being
of patients/public in relation to the seven hospitals in the UBLH
Trust.
In spite of this, we have made every effort
not to tread on toes, but to learn everything possible, and to
be helpful to staff as well as the patients.We have sent copies
of reports to the Trust, indeed we have done a great deal of work
for them, which was not undertaken by their Members' Council.
We are indeed a "critical friend",
in a way that no other independent body exists, and should be
allowed to make independent inspections as before under any new
system/initiative chosen.
We should also be allowed to see budgets and
accounts. According to the National Audit Office this is correct
but CPPIH have continued to refuse requests.
Transparency does not operate, the tax paying
public deserves better, but if we PPIFs are not consulted, (and
not just those Forum members loyal first to the civil servants)
no system will be effective, which can only reflect badly on the
government who put it in place.
Veronica Brinton
University College London Hospital Foundation Trust
PPI Forum
4 January 2007
| 
