89. Evidence submitted by the Royal College
of Surgeons of England Patient Liaison Group (PPI 85)
Summary
— The Patient Liaison Group is well
supported by the College
— The workload for the group is high
and has to be prioritised. Not all requests for input can be met.
This seems to reflect experience of other patient and public involvement
groups
— Public consultations should be live
for a minimum of 12 weeks
Brief Introduction to Patient Liaison Group (PLG)
Membership is made up of twelve lay people and
six surgeons, with two other ex officio surgeons. The lay chair
is an invited member of College Council. The Group has a full-time
administrator funded by the College, access to advice from other
College staff and is able to link with the President as required.
Lay members are recruited nationally via the press and formal
interview. They have direct extensive experience of being surgical
patients, family carers of surgical patients and/or membership
of patient organisations. Maximum membership of five years ensures
regular new members but is long enough for members to develop
extensive knowledge of College work and of health policy.
Lay members represent the Group on approximately
35 other committees and working parties, inside and outside the
College. The Group is strongly supported by its surgical members
who provide extra insight into the NHS and advice. The Group frequently
responds to consultation documents, both under its own name and
as contributions to College responses. It develops some of its
own work to further its aims, for example a review of research
into communication skills and a forthcoming guide to help surgeons
improve their patients' journeys. It belongs to and works with
the Patient Liaison Group of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges.
It produces a bi-annual newsletter as an information link and
source of feedback between the Group, patients and the College
membership.
Factual Information for the Committee to be Aware
Of
The workload for the Patient Liaison Group is
high. The lay and surgical members all have limited time to deal
with topics that are complex, fast changing, can require extensive
liaison with the College and all against a keen responsibility
that we must contribute our voice and often challenge directly,
for example the recent decision to drop clinical and communication
skills examination from the intercollegiate MRCS. The Group could
not manage without its full-time administrator and is aware that
other royal college groups don't always have equivalent support.
The Group works to an annual forward plan and increasingly has
to prioritise work as it cannot cover all possible topics and
request for input.
Despite the skills and resource available to
the Group, six-week consultation exercises are almost impossible
to manage. The Group has had to inform NICE that it cannot respond
to their one-month consultations except in very high-priority
circumstances and it has had to leave individual members to respond
to NICE if they wish.
Members who are also involved with Patient Forums
report similarly high workload and in addition, unlike the RCS
Patient Liaison Group, have difficulty in recruiting members.
Recommendations for the Committee to Consider in
Its Report
1. Remit and Level of Independence
1.1 The independence of LINks should be
incontrovertible.
1.2 We believe professional support of the
type provided to CHCs would provide increased effectiveness and
a greater reassurance of independence.
2. Membership and Appointments
2.1 The PLG wants to be able to use information
from LINks to help ensure its own work is representative. LINks
work must be easily available via a website which identifies the
difficulties in undertaking the work, not just the successful
outcomes.
2.2 We require reassurance that information
and recommendations from PPI work in trusts and LINks has been
collected objectively by LINks or NHS staff with enough training
and resource to follow appropriate methodologies.
2.3 We want to know that LINks will represent
not just "hard to reach groups" but the general body
of the public which doesn't fit this category but is still hard
to consult and involve. We want reassurance that LINks can prioritise
work according to LINks' view of importance, not because of lack
of volunteers, effective support for volunteers or training.
3. Funding and Support
3.1 There needs to be a greater recognition
nationally of the amount of work the changes in healthcare are
requiring of volunteers and of the support they need.
3.2 Any organisation supporting LINks must
have extensive understanding of the NHS and be recompensed for
their knowledge and experience as well as being appropriately
funded.
3.3 Despite the reassurances contained in
the Government's response to "A stronger local voice"
about the protections around funding, concerns remain that funding
will not be ring fenced. The recent example of SHAs using medical
training funds to reduce debt, increases such concerns.
4. Statutory Powers
4.1 The recent reassurance that existing
statutory powers will continue is welcome as is the acknowledgement
that high quality training is essential before such powers are
used.
5. Relations with Local Health Trusts
5.1 LINks should be able to review and report
NHS PPI work independently and comment on Trust submissions in
the Healthcare Commission Annual Healthcheck.
6. National Coordination
6.1 All consultations should be live for
a minimum of 12 weeks.
Liz Symnds
Chair, Patient Liaison Group of the Royal College
of Surgeons
10 January 2007
| 
