; Carers-should-be-included
Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out




More Info
  • pg 1
									Service User Involvement - Way Forward

Outline of Responses
(Most common comments are shown first)
           Carers should be included
           Staff role should be more explicit
           The implementation is the important bit:
            Would like to see next:
             Agreeing corporate objectives for service user and carer involvement.
             Development of a strategic development plan for service user and carer
               involvement which starts with the agreed objectives and identifies what needs
               to be done across the Trust to meet the objectives.
             Production of work plans by relevant teams and services; these should be
               developed in conjunction with service users and carers and be available to all
               to ensure accountability.
             Establishment of a „steering group‟ comprising service users and carers as
               well as staff to oversee and monitor the strategic development plan for

           The involvement strategy follows naturally from the Vision &Values and the
            Standards – is it really needed?
           Notwithstanding the above, there is clearly a need for an overall Involvement
            Strategy which explains why service users and carers need to be involved and
            what the Trust is going to do to ensure that involvement is central to the way it
            works. It is pleasing to note that document outlines the benefits of involvement
            to the Trust (though the wording could be more convincing) but it is a shame that
            there wasn‟t equal emphasis on the benefit to service users (and carers).

           I would like to see a more systematic approach, more closely linked to the
            Standards, which fully explains all the different strands of involvement

Remarks re drafting
   The wording could make people believe that social care was not included
   1st and 6th bullets on p3 not very well worded
   “Partnership working” should be explicitly mentioned (often)
   “Person Centred Planning” is a technical term, not to be confused with person-
   Funnel may be better than pyramid
   The V&V diagram is illegible
   Would read better if the interesting stuff appeared early and the supporting
     information were moved back – to an appendix?
   The MCA should be mentioned

fe2993bf-bfcf-4b2f-b43a-b0412fed1d02.doc                                            Page 1 of 2
SWOT – A number of respondents proposed additional entries
     L&D Strategy supports involvement
     Involvement leads to better services and to gained confidence and skills
             Advocacy is more than patchy
             As well as representation being concentrated in a few people they tend to
              represent only themselves
             Not good at involving people with limited communication
             Establishment of LINks
             Involvement of voluntary organisations (especially local groups)
             Promote PALS service
             Introduce EPP
             Give carers more support/training – this will give good VFM
             Introduce help-desk approach so people know where to get info
             Funding instability or restrictions
             Planned changes to CPA
             Too much change makes people anxious
             Failing to show that we are listening/have heard/will act
             Tokenism
             We Know Best approach
             Stigma
             People can get trapped in involvement as a pseudo-career

     Advocacy important
     Should be concerned with community health needs, not just individual
     There is a tension between the Trust‟s use of “Policy and Procedure” and a truly
      person-centred approach. How do we support good conversations about this?
     The Trust should be influencing partner organisations, particularly public transport
     The consultation was poorly publicised – no info at my CMHT or from my worker
     No info about how you will feed back. Will respond to individuals who commented +
      use website, FoCUS Committee and Area Groups
     No info about how hard-to-reach groups will be consulted
     Proposal for an “Entitlement Statement”
     Assertion by respondent that long term users do not have care plans.
     No mention of the way in which care coordinators are selected and trained – nor
      about encouraging them to be pro-active , not re-active.
     Personal story of a carer being excluded from son‟s care because professional
      believed it important to foster the son‟s independence (AMH)

fe2993bf-bfcf-4b2f-b43a-b0412fed1d02.doc                                           Page 2 of 2

To top