49. Evidence submitted by Kingston PCT
Forum (PPI 80)
1. PURPOSE
To ensure that patients and public (better just
as public) have a say in health provision in their local area,
bearing in mind that much secondary and tertiary and mental health
care may involve bodies outside the area of the LINK.
2. VALUE FOR
MONEY
Not possible to say unless a measure for VFM
is created. Presumably unpaid (and substantially retired??) groups
commenting on health and social care are VFM.
3. LINKS
Total independence. Remit (in theory) to represent
the views of the people of the area in respect of health and social
services.
4. MEMBERSHIP
This is a very grey area. In order prevent interest
groups "taking over" "independent" members
should be a majority. Very unclear as to which "voluntary
organizations" should be members—no definition of "membership".
Eg British Heart Foundation is a national body with, it is assumed
Trustees but, like others, has local outlets. Who would "represent"
it? Presumably not paid officials but, if not, who? The local
area will hold a number of people who are not represented by any
local body but who have relevant views and belong to national
bodies.
Initial appointments will be by Host Organizations,
without Local Authority involvement (and, although they are likely
to be local voluntary organizations there would seem to be a conflict
of interest if they seek to be members as well) and thereafter
by the LINK. There seems to be a need (and talking about "local
arrangements" will not do) for a permanent central LINKs
"executive" in each area. Given what the LINK is expected
to do and the potential size of its permanent and temporary membership
it seems as if a few of this group will need an honorarium.
5. FUNDING
It is disappointing that the funding will not
be ring fenced.
6. FOCUS
It is likely that the focus will be on hospitals
and PCTs and omit other areas as less visible
7. NATIONAL COORDINATION
This seems essential. Local bodies cannot (or
if they do, there will be enormous overlap) run training courses,
obtain CAB checks etc.
8. RELATIONSHIPS
It is understood that there are about 100 bodies
that already have powers to inspect "Health" so there
will be a substantial overlap. It seems unlikely that OSCs will
confine themselves, as suggested, to matters of commissioning.
It seems likely that patient and publics are
more likely to complain rather than praise. LINKs could look only
at general areas and would have to refer complainants to existing
procedures, using information from them to guide workplans.
9. PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Personal experience shows that Trusts carry
out substantial public consultation—with the main groups
attending being NHS staff and patients with specific interests—and
the totals being very small. On the whole it seems that Forums
have not been successful, despite best efforts, in rousing public
interest and it is not clear how LINKs will be more successful,
other than involving interest groups which do not represent "the
public" (potential patients) though they may have good contact
with current patients. This does not necessarily reflect on the
Forums—Local Elections indicate that public interest, other
than in high profile cases, is difficult to engage.
Gareth Jones
Chair, Kingston PCT Forum and also on behalf of Kingston
Hospital Trust Forum.
January 2007
| 
