130. Evidence submitted by John Kapp (PPI
31)
What is the purpose of PPI?
1. To solicit the help of patients in the
creation of a "patient-led" NHS, to make it similar
to every other service industry.
What form of PPI is desirable, practical
and offers good value for money?
The main legislative change needed is to give
PPI representatives more power. They need statutory rights to
sit on, speak and vote on all NHS committees concerned with patient
care including the think tanks of the CEOs. Managers could find
them valuable allies in their battles with doctors.
From their committee positions, patients have
a disproportionate effect whether the say anything or not. The
mere presence of a patient is a reminder of who the committee
is there to serve. They could also participate in true "consultation",
as nothing can be hidden from them. At times they have to be a
crumb in the bed or even a thorn in the flesh drawing attention
to doctors' arrogant attitudes.
Patient representatives need support in what
is a tough job. On each committee there should always be establishment
for at least two patient representatives, so that they can support
each other. If for any reason a PPI rep cannot be present at any
meeting, he should have power to appoint a deputy or a substitute
so that there is never a vacant chair. They also need good secretarial
service, as presently provided by CPPIH and the Forum Support
Organisations.
PPI representatives need to be able to stand
their own corner in meetings where they are not welcome. The more
that they can be trained in the issues mentioned above, the better
they will be prepared for the antagonism that is bound to occur
at their presence.
Why are existing systems for PPI being reformed
after only three years?
In my experience, those leading CPPIH and the
PPI Forum support organisations did not understand what their
objective was, or where they were going. They therefore could
not unite their members into a team. People went off in all directions,
with little to show for their efforts, resulting in frustration
and many resignations and high turnover. If the issues discussed
above concerning a patient-led NHS were accepted, a clear direction
would be pointed, and better leadership would emerge.
How should LINKs be designed including
Remit and level of independence
LINKs remit should be to create a patient-led
NHS by recruiting patients to sit with speaking, and voting rights
on every committee concerned with patient care. They should be
independently funded as was CPPIH so that they cannot become the
poodle of any organisation. (eg local authority).
Membership and Appointments
It should be easier and quicker to become a
LINKs representative than it was to become a PPI forum member.
There is no need for every representative to have the police check.
Funding and support
As CPPIH.
Creating a patient-led NHS.
Statutory powers
To sit on every committee concerned with patient
care with speaking and voting rights.
Relations with local health trusts
There should be a general recognition of the
problems of patients playing doctors referred to in Q1A above,
which otherwise will merely cause conflict.
National co-ordination
As CPPIH was doing.
How should LINKs relate to and avoid overlap with:
(a) Local Authority structures including
Overview and Scrutiny committees.
(b) Foundation Trust boards and Members
Councils.
(c) Inspectorates including the Healthcare
Commission.
(d) Formal and Informal complaints procedures.
Patient representatives should make clear that
they are representing the patient's interest only. It should be
written into their terms of reference that they should always
speak from their own experience, and not be mandated to plug any
party line.
In what circumstances should wider consultation
be carried out and what form should it take?
No comment.
John Kapp
7 January 2007
|