58. Evidence submitted by Medway Community
Health PPI forum (PPI 53)
CONCERNS ABOUT
PROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION
SETTING UP
LOCAL INVOLVEMENT
NETWORKS (LINKS)
The following comments are based on extensive
experience of Community Health Councils and Patient and Public
Involvement (PPI) Forums.
— PPI Forums, due to the membership
selection process, are diverse organisations with memberships
drawn from individuals with wide experience, particularly of people
from hard to reach groups. PPI Forums in Medway have been highly
successful as a result of this, eg work on privacy and dignity,
health in the workplace, etc—full information is available.
— LINKs have an inherent potential
weakness in that they could easily become a vehicle for well organised
pressure groups.
— PPI Forum members are a non-paid
independent group of motivated people. If voluntary organisations/pressure
groups form the backbone of LINKs past history/experience demonstrates
that paid officials take up membership places. This might seem
a trivial point but it goes to the heart of public/patient/carer
involvement in health and social care.
— The new system of PPI/strengthening
local communities policy is fragmented amongst a number of organisations
and has the danger being unfocused on NHS issues in particular.
— Experience of Overview and Scrutiny
Committees has demonstrated them as ineffective in providing local
scrutiny of the NHS and are recognised as such within the Cabinet
system operating within local government.
— Putting the funding of LINKs in the
hands of local government creates a conflict of interest in many
areas, eg OSCs; grant aiding voluntary organisations, etc.
— Need greater clarity about balance
between individuals and organisations within LINKs.
David Elkes
Chairman, Medway Community Health PPI Forum
9 January 2007
|
