Policy responses and statements

Name of organisation:

Healthcare Commission

Name of policy document:

Engaging with patients and the public

Deadline for response:

9 March 2006

Background: The Healthcare Commission's vision for services in healthcare is shaped by the needs and views of patients and the public. The consultation document sets out how the Commission proposes to put what matters most to patients and the public at the heart of its work. There are four main aspects to the plan:

engaging with patients and the public to understand their experiences, needs and views, and ensuring that healthcare organisations do the same;
ensuring that patients and the public are able to contribute effectively to the Commission's work;
providing information that is relevant, useful and accessible to patients and the public, so that people can make informed choices; and
developing staff to make sure the Commission can deliver its vision.

By 'engaging', the Commission means more than carrying out surveys or consultations. It wants to have a real dialogue with patients and the public, and with clinicians, to ensure that they learn from each other. And the Commission needs to act on what it learns, to improve healthcare services.

The consultation paper outlines what the Commission is already doing and requested views on its proposals. The Commission also requested ideas about how it can ensure that healthcare organisations engage effectively with patients and the public, so that what matters most to them shapes and informs the commissioning and provision of healthcare services.

COMMENTS ON
HEALTHCARE COMMISSION
ENGAGING WITH PATIENTS AND THE PUBLIC

The Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh is pleased to respond to the Healthcare Commission’s consultation on Engaging with patients and the public.

Question 1: What are your views about our vision? How well will the actions we have set out help us to realize it?

The vision is felt to be commendable.

Question 2: We have set out plans for engaging patients and the public in our work. To what extent do you think they will help us achieve our goals? Can you suggest ways we could improve them?

Differentiating between patients with chronic disease and those with acute illnesses is felt to be important, as is the recognition of geographical variation in disease patterns. The identity of “we” is questioned; who will select inspectors? Involvement of clinicians might help focus discussion.

Question 3: We want to reach out to, and engage with, people who are seldom heard. We would welcome your ideas about how we can do this well.

Various suggestions are put forward including trade unions, minority associations, inner city casualty departments and health care professionals including social services.

Question 4: An important part of our job is to ensure that all healthcare organisations engage effectively with patients and the public. How do you think we can best make this happen?

Ensure that the current protocols for engagement of patients and public are fulfilled in both spirit and letter by education of patient representatives. Patient representatives should be well informed of management priorities and on how to assess quality of care as well as quantity.

Question 5: What information do you think we should provide to patients and the public? What are the best ways for us to communicate that information?

Information should delineate local healthcare provision and explain local priorities, highlighting problem areas as well as successes. Communication through the usual media channels would be appropriate if managed carefully.

Question 7: We want to make people aware of our role and to build public confidence in our work. How do you think we should do this?

Public confidence will come if the activities of the Commission are seen to be effective and representative.

Copies of this response are available from:

Lesley Lockhart,
Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh,
9 Queen Street,
Edinburgh,
EH2 1JQ.

Tel: 0131 225 7324    ext 608
Fax: 0131 220 3939

[7 March 2006]