110. Evidence submitted by Jennifer Beesley
(PPI 41)
I joined the local PPIF be able to use my many
years of knowledge in health for the benefit of ALL. This summary
is of my experience of the PPIF and why I believe is not fit for
purpose and most certainly does not give best value. The most
important role of the PPIF is to represent the views of the local
population, but do they do this?
The annual budget of £38 million for PPIF
is a huge amount of money and there must be a question on its
effectiveness to give the public a voice when FSOs run the organisation
with their own agendas.
CHCs were generally known to the public, but
after three years still there is a vast majority of the public
who still have never heard of PPIF—WHY!
PPIF meetings should all be held in public,
and encourage public participation; not closed meetings and refusing
public questions. It is important to listen to the public in different
arenas to establish and identify their concerns enabling the forum
to carry out surveys/work etc.
The PPIF membership must be from all walks of
life, many may not want to fully participate but they should not
be made to feel second best. Disabled people need a great deal
of support to enable them to participate and that should be forthcoming,
not only by other members but the FSO as well.
The time delay to process new members is unacceptable.
The CPPIH seem to drag their feet, and therefore people then lose
interest.
CPPIH need to be abolished now. I have experienced
nothing but complacency. The CPPIH surveys requesting comments
on FSOs from your forum are ignored, and complaint are never satisfactorily
responded too. The CPPIH has the powers to enable them to run
a superb organisation, but no one seems to have the ability to
ACT. What has gone wrong! This organisation could have been a
very great asset in training, support etc, but always seems top
heavy with management.
Section 11 is a very great asset for forums
to carry out surveys and speak to the public about issues, while
visiting NHS establishments, which are important to them. The
independence of forums and their members have enabled them to
work as "critical friends" with PCTs.
On many occasions PPIFs have spoken to PCT Chief
Executive and drawn their attention to public concerns, which
they have then been addressed for the benefit of many. (eg: GUM
Clinic)
Great Yarmouth PPIF forum embarked on a GP survey
to establish how well the public could access appointments. With
NO help from our support organization we analysed 687 questionnaires
and received 1,477 volunteered specific comments. Published April
2006.
Each PPIF Annual Report is something which should
show the public what has been achieved during the year on their
behalf, but do they?
Our members have been refused access to examine
their forum yearly expenditure relating to the support agency
(to ensure best value) due to contractual confidentiality.
The Annual report template is something worth
looking at. Copies of all annual reports are sent to the local
SHA. Perhaps comments from them on the composition and contents
would give the committee some ideas of forums work and best value.
East of England SHA comprises of 69 PPI forums—why
so many?
The new reconfiguration of PCTs has brought
a greater role on PPIFs. The smaller and some times more active
PPIFs have been swallowed up, and in some cases members have left.
Leaving some areas only represented by one PPIF member. Was this
destruction of smaller PPIF really necessary?
Up until Links, the CPPIH and PPIF will have
been independent organisations. There can be question of conflict
of interest with members dual NHS roles which the act is very
specific on, but the CPPIH lacks the ability to carry out their
statutory duty is to ensure members are as independent as their
organisations. Members of any public body must remember The Nolan
Report on conflict of interest and the public perception, and
in turn the CPPIH should also fulfil its statutory duty.
LINKS can be a wonderful way of involving the
public but allowing CC to control the budget without ring fencing
is ludicrous. They will, as always, top slice the budget—and
further more,how can they scrutinise some thing they are controlling?
The County Council OVS committee locally has
a tendency to have working parties but they never seem to finish
their work! When PPIF take serious concerns on bed closures to
them, yet another working party is set up and the finding never
come back to the OVS committee. Then its all to late, a year on.
Conclusion
During the time I was a member and a Chairman
of a PPIF, I found the biggest battle was dealing with the FSO
who never wanted anything to be open & transparent. The CPPIH
were supportive on many occasions but were often inconsistent
with advice. Perhaps with LINKS it may be better overall, but
so far I am not convinced that the public want to get sufficiently
involved in the work that is required.
The lack of Audit of such a large quango is
concerning and to restructure it within three years is, at first
impressions, irresponsible But is it?
After being part of this organisation and seeing
its ways of operation and organisation I would say: no there is
a better way, but perhaps not quite so drastic.
The future of PPIF or Links should be far more
public friendly. Meetings should not be at 9 am in a morning to
suit the Chairman but at different times enabling people who work
to attend.
Will Links make the change that the government
wants, and will there be sufficient new members? I very much doubt
this, as apathy brings health to its lowest ebb.
The PPIF/Links, or what ever it may be, must
look to the future with openness and optimism for successful working
with the public, and not allow weak support organisations to destroy
them.
Jennifer Beesley
6 January 2007
| 
