Reforming the NHS Complaints Procedure. Report on the responses to a consultation
|
|
- Wesley Chase
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Report on the responses to a consultation prepared by Scottish Health Feedback Scottish Health Feedback 5 Leamington Terrace Edinburgh EH10 4JW enquiries@scottishhealthfeedback.co.uk September 2003
2 CONTENTS 1. Introduction Consultations on Patient Focus and Public Involvement Background to the consultation on Reforming the NHS Complaints Procedure 1 2. Aims and methods of the analysis of responses Aims Methods Presentation of results Who responded and how Respondents Methods of gathering responses Structure of responses Results of the analysis Structure of Results section Responses to Feedback form questions Responses to paragraphs within the draft document Responses to the Annexes to the draft document Emerging themes Summary and Conclusions Feedback form questions Emerging themes Conclusions Appendix 1: Methods of analysis Appendix 2: List of respondents Appendix 3: Additional points made in response to feedback questions Appendix 4: Alternative proposals in response to Question 10
3 Reforming the NHS Complaints Procedure Report on the responses to a consultation 1. Introduction 1.1. Consultations on Patient Focus and Public Involvement The White Paper Partnership for Care 1 was published by the Scottish Executive in February Among many other proposals for the NHS in Scotland, this confirmed the commitments in an earlier paper, Patient Focus and Public Involvement 2, published in December 2001, to introduce and implement a framework for a change in the way in which the health service interacts with the people it serves. Shortly after Partnership for Care, the Executive published three consultation papers, each presenting more detailed proposals for one aspect of this programme, namely: - Reforming the NHS Complaints Procedure - A new public involvement structure for NHSScotland - Patient rights and responsibilities. Accompanying each paper was a set of feedback questions covering key aspects on which the Scottish Executive was seeking opinions. People wishing to give their opinions were free either to use the structure provided by these questions or to comment in any other way. The Scottish Executive commissioned Scottish Health Feedback 3 to analyse and report on the responses to these consultation papers. This report presents the results of the responses to the first of these consultation papers, Reforming the NHS Complaints Procedure. A shorter Executive Summary is available separately, from the address given at the end of this Introduction Background to the consultation on Reforming the NHS Complaints Procedure The current UK-wide NHS complaints procedure was introduced in April Feedback from patients and NHS staff suggested that it needed updated. Together with other UK Health Departments, NHSScotland commissioned an independent evaluation of the operation of the complaints procedure. The evaluation and comments on its conclusions and recommendations confirmed the need to develop a revised procedure. 1 Scottish Executive Health Department, Scottish Executive Health Department, Scottish Health Feedback (SHF) is an independent research agency. It is not part of the Scottish Executive. The Scottish Executive funded SHF to undertake this analysis and produce an independent, objective report. Scottish Health Feedback 1
4 An advisory group of representatives of NHS staff, the public and patients was established to consider the evaluation report, the comments received on it and to advise on the development of a new NHS Complaints Procedure. The Advisory Group aimed to develop proposals for creating a complaints procedure which would be credible, easy to use, demonstrably independent and effective. These proposals are set out in the consultation paper and are aimed at: creating a more patient focused approach to local resolution; better support for local resolution in Family Health Services; replacing the internal independent review process with one carried out by an appropriate national body; and creating a quality assured process that would assess the effectiveness of the complaints procedures in each NHS Board area. The consultation paper was distributed across Scotland and responses were collated by the Scottish Executive and forwarded to Scottish Health Feedback for analysis. This Report, and the Executive Summary based on it, can be viewed on the website Scottish Health on the Web (SHOW): Hard copies are available from: Mrs Dylais Mattison Ground East Rear St Andrews House Regent Road Edinburgh EH1 3DG Scottish Health Feedback 2
5 2. Aims and methods of the analysis of responses 2.1. Aims The aim of the analysis has been to produce an impartial, comprehensive yet reasonably succinct overview of the responses received to the consultation paper. This will inform the Scottish Executive Health Department in further development of the proposed changes and policies outlined in the paper, so that they may take account of the information, views and insights offered. It was essential that the way this summary was arrived at should be transparent, and this has influenced the methods used and the way the results are presented Methods Each response was read in full and broken down into comments. Each comment consists of a continuous section of text dealing with a particular part of the consultation document or a particular issue or theme. Each comment was coded in one or more of the following three ways, as appropriate: in relation to one of the feedback questions accompanying the Consultation Document in relation to the Section or paragraph to which it refers in the Consultation Document in relation to a more general theme or themes that emerged as significant from the content of the responses themselves (see below). More general comments relating to the approach underlying the Consultation Document, or broader issues that either did not correspond to one of the accompanying questions or spanned more than one of them, were analysed according to the major themes they addressed. These themes could not be predicted in advance but emerged from reading the responses themselves. More detail on methods of analysis is given in Appendix Presentation of results The style of presentation of the results has been heavily influenced by the requirements of comprehensiveness and impartiality. It is not the job of this report to come down on one side or another in relation to any particular issue, but to summarise fairly and fully the comments made by all parties. The results of the analysis are therefore presented at two levels Detailed results by feedback question, paragraph and additional theme In Section 4, detailed summaries are given of the comments relating to: Scottish Health Feedback 3
6 - each of the feedback form questions - each individual paragraph - specific themes not covered by either of the above. It is possible, therefore, to select any aspect of the consultation paper and go immediately to the relevant section of this report to see what was said about it, where the balance of opinion lies, and what issues were raised. In addition, many respondents made individual points in relation to the feedback questions which did not form part of any clear common thread of opinion, and were therefore difficult to summarise collectively. These have been summarised individually and presented in Appendix 3. The numbers of respondents making a point are reported throughout, together with indications of what kinds of respondent these were (individuals, NHS Boards, voluntary organisations and so on). This makes for comprehensive and, we believe, balanced coverage but would be difficult reading from beginning to end Overview A more accessible overview can be obtained by going straight to Section 5. The first part of this is organised according to the feedback questions, giving brief summaries of the main views expressed. This is followed by a review of the main additional emergent themes, and finally by a concluding section giving an overall picture and drawing out some of the important threads. For most readers it is probably best to read Section 5 first, then to refer to those parts of Section 4 where they wish to explore particular questions, paragraphs or themes in more detail. If they then wish to see what additional individual issues were raised in relation to a feedback question they can refer to the relevant part of Appendix A note on numbers A summary of over a hundred responses cannot avoid reporting numbers. We do so throughout this report, indicating how many respondents shared a particular view or made similar points. This gives the reader some broad indication of the extent of support for or opposition to each aspect of the proposals. However, a consultation is not a referendum. Each response to the consultation is valid in its own right, and should be considered as such. This report is a summary of, and a guide to, the responses; it is not a substitute for reading the responses themselves. We do not make any judgement on what weight should be placed on any response. It is for the reader to make such judgements, not ourselves as impartial reporters. Such judgements may be influenced by many factors, among which is the nature of the source of the response. An individual member of the public, an NHS Board, a professional Scottish Health Feedback 4
7 association, an organisation representing patients interests: these are different kinds of respondent, speaking from different perspectives, speaking as individuals or on behalf of many others. Regardless of the source, we have reported each comment equally. However, recognising that comments from different kinds of source may be seen as qualitatively different, wherever we report numbers of responses sharing a particular view we indicate not only the total, but the breakdown by category of respondent. Thus it is always possible to see how many of these respondents were individuals, how many were NHS Boards, how many service user organisations, and so on. This is a compromise. Even within a category, there are large variations in the size and nature of responding organisations. Some professional bodies represent thousands of people, some perhaps a few dozen. Some service user organisations are large, some small. Size is not the only criterion, however: for example, some organisations may have expert knowledge that gives extra credibility to their comments on some particular aspect of the proposals. Ultimately, the only way to give the reader the full picture would be to identify the source of every view. This would make this report impossibly long and difficult to read, and it would cease to be a useful guide or summary. We have therefore adopted the compromise explained above, leaving the reader the burden of deciding what weight to put on the numbers. It should always be borne in mind that the full text of all responses is publicly available Original responses The full text of all responses (except where the respondent has requested otherwise) is being made available by the Scottish Executive Health Department on its website: Scottish Health Feedback 5
8 3. Who responded and how 3.1. Respondents There were 174 responses to the Reforming the NHS Complaints Procedure consultation document. Of these, 24 responses were from NHS Boards or NHS Trusts, 36 were from service user organisations, 58 were from individuals, 24 were anonymous responses and the remainder (34) from other sources. Table 3-1 shows the sources of all responses. It should be noted that because of the great diversity of respondents, definitions of the categories need to be broadly interpreted: they are deployed here merely to provide convenient labels for grouping and some respondents may find themselves under unfamiliar headings. When responses came from an individual giving an organisational address, it was not always clear whether that person was responding in an individual capacity or on behalf of the organisation. When in doubt, it was treated as an individual response. This means that some people who wrote from, for example, a local authority or an NHS Trust address, have been categorised as individual, perhaps because they used the pronoun I rather than we. Service user organisations is a very wide category and includes, as well as Health Councils, organisations such as Community Councils. Community Care Forums, local mental health organisations and so on. The justification for this broad grouping is that all potentially represent the interests of people who are or might be users of NHS services. NHS Boards includes Special Health Boards and the Common Services Agency, and a collective responses from an NHS Board and Trusts in one area Professional bodies include, as well as bodies like the British Medical Association and Royal College of Nursing, any grouping of people on the basis of their profession or professional interest (including, for example, a Pharmaceutical Committee, the NHS Scotland Chief Executives Group, and the trade union UNISON) Public bodies include any non-departmental body or agency The one respondent classified as a commercial organisation is the Scottish Pharmaceutical Federation, a trade association. A complete list of respondents by category is given in Appendix 2. Scottish Health Feedback 6
9 Table 3-1: Source of responses to Reforming the NHS Complaints Procedure Source of response Number of % of responses * responses (n=174) Individuals 58 33% Service user organisations 35 20% (including Local Health Councils) Anonymous 24 14% NHS Boards 16 9% Professional bodies 16 9% NHS Trusts 8 5% Public bodies 5 3% Voluntary organisations 6 3% Courts and legal bodies 1 0.6% Commercial organisations 1 0.6% Local authorities 0 0% Academic bodies 0 0% Other (including GP surgeries and GP 4 2% subcommittees) * percentages have been rounded Where responses were received from individuals, an attempt was made to determine whether the individual was a health professional, a service user organisation or other. There was limited success with this classification, with the majority of individual responses being classified as unspecified. Table 3-2 shows the distribution of responses from those replying in an individual capacity. Table 3-2: Responses from individuals Type of individual Number of responses % of individual responses (n=57) Health professional 15 27% Service user organisation 9 16% Other 3 5% Unspecified 30 52% In total, there were 83 (50%) people who responded on behalf of an organisation and 45 (26%) people who responded in an individual capacity: it was unclear for the remainder (42 or 24%) in which capacity they were responding Methods of gathering responses Scottish Health Feedback 7
10 Six of those responding on behalf of an organisation or group gave details of how the responses had been collected. Methods of gathering and collating views on the consultation document included: focus discussion groups, summaries of written comments, working groups, notes from meetings and informal discussions with individuals. Those who described their method of response gathering included four service user organisations (including three health councils), one health board and one professional body Structure of responses The consultation document was provided to potential respondents with an accompanying feedback form consisting of 12 questions that related specifically to the document. The feedback form was the sole method of response for 76 (43%) of the respondents. A slightly larger number (n=91 or 52%) responded using their own format including comments, references to paragraphs and/or answers to questions presented in the consultation document. The remainder of respondents (n=8 or 5%) responded using both the feedback form and their own format. Fifteen respondents submitted identical responses (each responding in an individual capacity). Scottish Health Feedback 8
11 4. Results of the analysis 4.1. Structure of Results section The results section has been structured in the following way: Section 4.2: Responses to Feedback form questions Each question is presented along with a summary of the responses to that question. Respondents answered these questions both directly, i.e. using the feedback form structure, and indirectly, that is, they addressed the questions within a response using their own structure. The main strands in all responses are summarised, and it is made clear how many respondents of which categories gave particular views. Most questions also prompted many additional points, each made by only one or a small number of respondents; these are presented separately in Appendix 3 in order to keep the length of the main text manageable. Section 4.3: Comments that relate to specific paragraphs within the document Section 4.4: Comments that relate to specific Annexes to the document Section 4.5: Emergent themes Summaries of comments that do not relate to specific questions or paragraphs but that have been identified as emerging themes from the responses. Section 5 then draws together all of the results into a summary. This structure has been adopted to enable the reader to go straight to the question, or section of the document, in which he or she is interested, and see a summary of all the comments relating to that question or section. It inevitably entails some repetition, because some topics were commented on in more than one place. Verbatim quotations have been included sparingly to illustrate pertinent points, with the category of respondent indicated. Full reports of all comments made in relation to a question, paragraph, section or theme are provided in the coding reports, fully attributed Responses to Feedback form questions There were 12 questions listed on the pre-prepared feedback form: Question 1: Does the information in the consultation document give you enough information on the proposed procedure? Question 2: Do you feel that the draft procedure would be easy to use? Scottish Health Feedback 9
12 Question 3: Do you feel that the draft procedure would be demonstrably independent and effective? Question 4: Do you agree with the roles and responsibilities set out in paragraphs 27-28? Question 5: Do you agree with the proposals for supporting individuals in paragraphs 29-33? Question 6: Do you agree with the proposals for facilitation in the Family Health Services set out in paragraphs 43-48? Question 7: Do you agree with the further recommendations for improving local resolution set out in paragraph 51? Question 8: Do you agree with the role identified in paragraphs for Liaison Officers in Hospital and Community Health Services procedure? Question 9: Two options are offered for improving the independent review stage. Which option would you support? A National Complaints Authority (paragraphs 63-69) An earlier role for the Ombudsman (paragraphs 70-73) Question 10: Do you feel that there is an alternative option that we should consider? Question 11: Do you agree with the further recommendations for improvement set out in paragraph 75? Question 12: Are there any other comments that you would like to make about the draft NHS Complaints procedure? Comments relating to each of these questions are described in turn below. At the start of each section, numbers are given of those responding, tabulated according to the category of respondent and, where relevant, to whether they agreed or disagreed with the proposition in the question. Only those expressing a definite opinion are counted in these tables. Others may have made comments pertaining to the question, without expressing a definite opinion one way or the other, and these are taken into account in the following summary. Scottish Health Feedback 10
13 Feedback form Question 1 Question 1: Does the information in the consultation document give you enough information on the proposed procedure? Question 1 was answered either directly or indirectly by 109 respondents (see Table 4-1). Of these, the majority, 67%, felt that the document did give them enough information on the proposed procedure and 33% felt that it did not. Suggestions for improving the document so that it would provide enough information were made both by respondents who replied yes and those who replied no. Table 4-1: Respondents to Question 1 Category of respondent Yes n = 73 67% Response to Question 1 (n = 109) % of total Yes responses No n = 36 33% % of total No responses NHS Trust 2 3% 2 6% NHS Board 6 8% 4 11% Courts and Legal bodies 0 0% 0 0% Public body 1 1% 0 0% Commercial organisation 0 0% 0 0% Service user organisation 15 21% 13 36% Voluntary organisation 0 0% 2 6% Professional body 2 3% 1 3% Individual 23 31% 7 19% Other 3 4% 2 6% Anonymous 21 29% 3 8% *percentages have been rounded Respondents from: NHS Trusts, NHS Boards, public bodies, service user organisations, voluntary organisations, professional bodies and those responding in an individual capacity all suggested that more information, presented in a clearer way would aid understanding of the proposed procedure. The main points that were made by respondents were that: Insufficient detail/explanation of the roles of the facilitator, the complaints officer and the liaison officer are provided leading to confusion and poor understanding of the procedure. (9 respondents: 1 NHS Trust, 3 NHS Boards, 1 public body, 3 service user organisations, 1 anonymous) It would appear that there is a possibility of confusion in terms of the role of Liaison Officer and that of the Complaints Officer. Scottish Health Feedback 11
14 Service user organisation Q1: No. More about the role/function of the proposed `facilitator and `liaison officer. Anon A flowchart to illustrate the proposed procedure would have made it easier to understand and to compare to the current complaints procedure. (5 respondents: 1 professional body, 3 service user organisations, 1 voluntary organisation) a flowchart/pathway might have been beneficial in clarifying the complaints handling/ management process and also brought some clarity to the points at which the process is anticipated to change so as to bring added value and improvement. Professional body The document may be difficult to understand for those without prior knowledge of the NHS structure and the current complaints procedure. (9 respondents: 7 service user organisations, 2 individuals) I think that it would not be very easy for anyone reading this document, with no prior knowledge of the NHS Complaints Procedure, to understand how the proposed changes differ from the current process. Individual Comments were also made to suggest that: the language used in the document was too complex and needs to be vetted by an expert in Plain English (6 respondents: 4 service user organisations, 1 individual, 1 other); the document was too vague and lacking in substance which may lead to a feeling that structure is emphasised more than process (8 respondents: 1 NHS Trust, 1 NHS Board, 3 service user organisations, 2 individuals, 1 other); and the timescales included in the procedure are too vague. (5 respondents: 1 NHS Board, 1 NHS Trust, 2 service user organisations, 1 professional body) Many points were raised regarding areas of the procedure that were either not discussed in sufficient detail or not discussed at all. These are listed in Appendix 3. There was some questioning of the need for a whole new procedure and whether the existing procedure could have been revised instead. This questioning arose from some respondents views that there was a lack of sufficient details regarding the Evaluation Survey and from their concern over the validity of the findings. Scottish Health Feedback 12
15 Feedback form Question 2 Question 2: Do you feel that the draft procedure would be easy to use? Question 2 was answered either directly or indirectly by 103 respondents (see Table 4-2). Of these, 52% felt that the draft procedure would be easy to use and 48% did not. Table 4-2: Respondents to Question 2 Category of respondent Yes n = 54 52% Response to Question 2 (n=103) % of total Yes responses No n = 49 48% % of total No responses NHS Trust 1 2% 3 6% NHS Board 3 6% 5 10% Courts and Legal bodies % Public body 1 2% 1 2% Commercial organisation 0 0% 0 0% Service user organisation 10 18% 16 33% Voluntary organisation 1 2% 1 2% Professional body 1 2% 2 4% Individual 19 35% 10 20% Other 4 7% 0 0% Anonymous 14 26% 11 23% *percentages have been rounded One service user organisation and one NHS Board felt that it was difficult to answer this question without full and detailed knowledge of the current procedure. Of those who did make a direct comparison, one public body felt that the new procedure would be easier to use than the old procedure whereas one NHS Trust and one service user organisation felt that it would not be easier, or were not convinced that it would. Nine respondents (3 service user organisations, 1 voluntary organisation, 2 individuals and 3 anonymous) commented that there were too many people and bodies involved in the procedure and that this may make it difficult for members of the general public to understand and use it. A variety of respondents (1 NHS Trust, 2 NHS Boards, 3 service user organisations, 2 individuals and 1 anonymous) suggested that the procedure may be difficult to explain to patients and that there may be particular confusion regarding the differences between the roles of the complaints officer, the liaison officer and the facilitator. To aid understanding of the procedure, it was suggested that guidance notes, including flowcharts to illustrate the complaints process, are provided along with the procedure document (suggested by 1 NHS Trust, 4 NHS Boards, 6 service user organisations, 2 voluntary organisations, 1 individual and 1 other). The guidance notes should be appropriate for use by a lay person and it was noted that the new procedure will Scottish Health Feedback 13
16 need to be adequately publicised to users of the health service. It was also suggested by one service user organisation that the inclusion of a complainant s journey could help to make the procedure easier to understand. The need for training to be provided to all of those involved in the complaints process was highlighted by four service user organisations, two NHS Trusts, two individuals and one voluntary organisation. In addition, it was suggested that the culture or ethos of the NHS was a crucial factor in how easy the proposed complaints procedure would be to use and how effective it would be (suggested by 1 NHS Trust, 1 NHS Board, 2 service user organisations and 3 individuals). Q2: Yes. While the procedure should be easy to apply, the success or otherwise of this is dependent on the ethos and culture which is set and supported within the organisation. NHS Board Scottish Health Feedback 14
17 Feedback form Question 3 Question 3: Do you feel that the draft procedure would be demonstrably independent and effective? Question 3 was answered either directly or indirectly by 121 respondents (see Table 4-3). Of those who responded to this question, 48% felt that the draft procedure would be demonstrably independent and effective and 52% did not. Most of the responses to this question related to the independence of the proposed procedure rather than its effectiveness. Table 4-3: Respondents to Question 3 Category of respondent Yes n = 58 48% Response to Question 3 (n = 121) % of total Yes responses No n = 63 52% % of total No responses NHS Trust 1 2% 5 8% NHS Board 4 7% 2 3% Courts and Legal bodies 0 0% 0 0% Public body 2 3% 1 2% Commercial organisation 0 0% 0 0% Service user organisation 14 24% 16 25% Voluntary organisation 1 2% 2 3% Professional body 2 3% 1 2% Individual 15 26% 27 43% Other 3 5% 1 2% Anonymous 16 28% 8 13% *percentages have been rounded Thirty-four respondents felt that the proposed procedure would not be independent as the NHS would be involved in the stages preceding the Ombudsman or courts. This view was held mainly by individuals (19) and service user organisations (7). The remainder included: two NHS Trusts, one public body, one voluntary organisation, one professional body and three anonymous respondents. Sixteen of the respondents (15 individuals and 1 voluntary organisation) pointed out that review processes adopted by public bodies must be independent and impartial in order to comply with article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights It was felt that the practices and procedures of the complaints system must be seen to be totally impartial and free from NHS influence (professional body). In view of this, local resolution overseen by NHS-employed chief executives, independent contractors in family health services, facilitators funded through primary care teams, complaints officers assigned by NHS organisations, NHS staff acting as liaison officers and an NHSScotland Complaints Authority were all seen to be lacking in independence. Scottish Health Feedback 15
18 One of the points raised (by 1 NHS Boards, 2 service user organisations, 1 NHS Trust, 1 public body and 2 anonymous respondent) was that the Ombudsman role was a crucial factor in how independent the general public would perceive the proposed procedure to be. The Ombudsman was perceived to be sufficiently independent of the NHS to ensure an unbiased viewpoint would be taken. However, two respondents (1 service user organisation and 1 anonymous) did question whether the Ombudsman role would be sufficiently resourced to cope with all the requests for review of cases. A further suggestion was that the role could be made even more independent if the Ombudsman worked with a panel comprising of members of the general public. Opinions regarding the options for either an earlier role for the Ombudsman or a National Complaints Authority are discussed in greater detail in Section Of those who commented on the effectiveness of the proposed procedure, it was noted by four respondents (2 service user organisations, 1 public body and 1 professional body) that the effectiveness of the procedure will be, in part, dependent upon the training and support offered to facilitators and liaison officers. There was concern that the effectiveness of the procedure within independent contractor services would be up to the whim of the independent practitioner (individual respondent). Also, the effectiveness was questioned: where a partner or colleague is expected to act as a Complaints Officer in respect of a close member of a practice. They are unable to provide an independent, detached and, where often is needed, firm judgement on their friend and colleague. Individual Scottish Health Feedback 16
19 Feedback form Question 4 Question 4: Do you agree with the roles and responsibilities set out in paragraphs 27-28? Question 4 was answered either directly or indirectly by 120 respondents: 84% did agree with the roles and responsibilities set out in paragraphs and 16% did not (see Table 4-4). Table 4-4: Respondents to Question 4 Response to Question 4 (n = 120) Category of respondent Yes n = % % of total Yes responses No n = 19 16% % of total No responses NHS Trust 6 6% 0 0% NHS Board 9 9% 1 5% Courts and Legal bodies 0 0% 0 0% Public body 3 3% 0 0% Commercial organisation 0 0% 0 0% Service user organisation 24 24% 5 26% Voluntary organisation 1 1% 0 0% Professional body 9 9% 1 5% Individual 22 22% 9 47% Other 4 4% 0 0% Anonymous 23 23% 3 16% *percentages have been rounded One of the main comments in response to the complaints officer role was that there was difficulty in differentiating between the role of the complaints officer and the liaison officer. (This response was made by 10 of the respondents: 3 NHS Boards, 3 service user organisations, 1 voluntary organisation, 1 professional body and 1 anonymous.) To help clarify this there was a general call for greater clarity of the role of the complaints officer. Suggestions of additions to the complaints officer role were made including: Awareness raising of the nature of complaints to wider departments who also have an interest in that part of the service (1 individual) Ensuring that all NHS staff are provided with high quality training to enable them to deal effectively with patients complaints (1 public body and 1 professional body) Ensuring that there is a systematic approach to learning lessons arising from complaints (1 service user organisation) Ensuring that NHS staff certify that their account is true to the best of their knowledge and that they respond to the complainant s account of the events (15 individuals and 1 voluntary organisation) Scottish Health Feedback 17
20 Investigate the complaints/concerns raised (1 NHS Trust and 1 service user organisation) Monitoring complaints to establish patterns of common complaints and the operation of the complaints process, particularly evaluating the complainant s experience of using the process (1 service user organisation) Liaison with those responsible for risk management and clinical governance to ensure that information about complaints is used to improve standards of care (1 NHS Board and 2 professional bodies). Five of the respondents (3 service user organisations, 1 professional body and 1 individual) disagreed with the fourth item in paragraph 28 of the consultation document (a list of what is included in the complaint officer s role), namely ensuring that there is a local policy for dealing with vexatious and habitual complaints. It was felt that there should be both a national and a local policy in order to ensure consistency across all areas. One local health council suggested that: Ensuring there is a local policy for dealing with vexatious and habitual complaints could be construed as denying people the right to make a complaint, in the opinion of members. Service user organisation And a response from various local health councils suggested that: Protocol for handling vexatious and habitual complainants must be agreed nationally and be informed by national guidance. Service user organisation In addition to this, the title Complaints Officer was criticised by six respondents (2 service user organisations, 1 public body, 1 professional body, 1 individual and 1 other) as it has negative connotations and does not acknowledge that some people may want to comment on the system (including giving positive feedback) rather than lodging a complaint. One individual suggested that the title of Officer reeks of bureaucracy and signifies a passive rank rather than an active role. This statement was supported by a service user organisation who suggested that a change of name would make the role more approachable from the public perspective. Alternative title suggestions included: Patient Feedback Officer Patient Services Manager Patient Relations Officer, Manager or Executive Quality Improvement Officer. Comments regarding the complaints officer role included the need to acknowledge that the officer would require dedicated time, training, administrative and emotional support to perform their role effectively. (These comments were made by: 4 service user organisations, 3 individuals, 2 professional bodies, 1 other and 1 anonymous respondent.) Six respondents (3 NHS Trusts, 2 service user organisations and 1 individual) noted that it would be important that the officer had a good working knowledge of the organisation in which the complaint had arisen as: Scottish Health Feedback 18
21 A Complaints Officer covering a large NHS Trust with different hospitals and specialisms might be too remote from clinical services to understand the detail and nuances of complaints. NHS Trust The independence of a complaints officer employed and assigned by an NHS organisation was questioned by 14 of the respondents (6 service user organisations, 5 individuals, 2 anonymous and 1 professional body). It was suggested that: Any member of the NHS organisation is going to be biased in their assessment of a complaint. What is needed is complete independence from NHS involvement when assessing the complaint. Service user organisation and that an alternative route to employing a complaints officer with greater perceived impartiality would be to appoint complaints officers: in a manner similar to NHS Board Chairmen rather than being part of mainstream NHS staff, this would certainly enhance their independence and might engender more confidence in the impartiality of the handling of complaints. Service user organisation Clarification of the relationship between the complaints officer and the senior member of the executive team (referred to in paragraph 27 of the consultation document), in addition to clarification of the level/grade of the complaints officer, was requested by nine respondents (3 NHS Boards, 2 NHS Trusts, 1 service user organisation, 1 professional body, 1 public body and 1 other). Specifically, clarification was requested of the grade/level of the complaints officer to enable them to deal with the issues raised quickly and effectively without needing to refer, in all but the most exceptional circumstances, to more senior staff (requested by 2 NHS Boards, 2 local health councils and 1 NHS Trust). It was noted by one NHS Board respondent that that this is not reflected in the current pay structure which lists complaints staff at very junior grades. There were particular concerns about the complaints officer s role in the Family Health Service setting. It was noted that the role is currently often filled by the practice manager and that this would be likely to continue once the new procedure was implemented. The main concern (by 4 professional body respondents) was the resource implications of having a complaints officer within general practice. There were concerns that the practice manager/complaints officer would not have sufficient time to dedicate to the role. It was suggested that the new procedure should emphasise the need for protected time for the complaints officer tasks. There were additional concerns about the impartiality of a complaints officer within a general practice, particularly a smaller or more rural practice (noted by 3 service user organisations, 1 individual and 1 anonymous respondent). It was suggested that: Scottish Health Feedback 19
22 independence is compromised if complaints are dealt with solely within the practice and would suggest a role in complaints for LHCCs. It is not uncommon for patients to be deregistered as a consequence of making a complaint and this is a particular fear for patients in rural areas Service user organisation Also, there was questioning by one public body, one NHS Trust, one professional body and one service user organisation of the status or managerial leverage of practice managers and whether they would be regarded as someone of sufficient seniority for the complaints officer role: Consideration also requires to be given to the status of some of the Practice Managers and their ability to generate the managerial leverage suggested as necessary within the report. Is it envisaged that this leverage will occur as a consequence of the core quality requirements contained within the proposed GMS contract? Paragraph 28: The consultative document does not clarify how practice managers will fulfil their revised role. Consideration could perhaps have been given to pathways to be followed in each part of the service. Professional body Sixteen respondents (12 service user organisations, 1 NHS Trust, 1 public body, 1 professional body and 1 individual) gave a definitive answer regarding whether they supported the proposal for the appointment of a named senior member of the executive team by the Chief Executive of each NHS organisation. Fourteen did support this appointment but two respondents (1 service user organisation and 1 individual) felt that the responsibility of the chief executive cannot be delegated, therefore there should be no requirement placed on them to make appointments of any kind. Clarification of the role of the senior member of the executive was also requested by four NHS Boards, one professional body, one NHS Trust, one public body and one other respondent as it was noted that: It is not clear whether this person is likely to be the Designated Director for Public Involvement, though it would seem likely that in NHS organisations with such a director, this would be part of his or her role. Public body Finally, it was suggested by one NHS Board that the responsibility for delivering the organisation s patient feedback and complaints process (paragraph 27) may be better undertaken by clinical governance support staff as this would: allow greater opportunity for transferable lessons to be learned and for the complaints/feedback function to be related to performance management and review systems. This arrangement would strengthen the relationship between the organisation and the complaints officer. NHS Board Feedback form Question 5 Scottish Health Feedback 20
23 Question 5: Do you agree with the proposals for supporting individuals in paragraphs 29-33? Question 5 was answered either directly or indirectly by 145 respondents: 68% agreed with the proposals for supporting individuals in paragraphs and 32% did not (see Table 4-5). Table 4-5: Respondents to Question 5 Category of respondent Yes n = 98 (68%) Response to Question 5 (n = 145) % of total Yes responses No n = 47 (32%) % of total No responses NHS Trust 4 3% 4 9% NHS Board 8 8% 5 11% Courts and Legal bodies 0 0% 0 0% Public body 4 4% 0 0% Commercial organisation 0 0% 0 0% Service user organisation 12 12% 23 49% Voluntary organisation 3 3% 0 0% Professional body 10 11% 1 2% Individual 37 38% 8 17% Other 2 2% 2 4% Anonymous 19 19% 4 9% *percentages have been rounded Of those who did agree with the proposals, the following points were raised: There is a need to clarify the relationship between the local source of independent advice and support (referred to in paragraph 30) and the specialist advocacy services (referred to in paragraph 33). (7 respondents: 4 NHS Boards, 1 NHS Trust and 2 professional bodies) There will need to be adequate funding and resources to provide an adequate and accessible source of advice/support/advocacy, particularly for those living in rural/remote areas and for those with special needs. (22 respondents: 8 service user organisations, 4 NHS Boards, 3 individuals, 2 public bodies, 3 NHS Trusts, 1 professional body, 1 voluntary organisation, and 1 other) There are concerns that the existing voluntary and advocacy agencies will not be able to meet the demand for support that is generated by the proposed procedure. Some agencies may also not wish to adopt the role proposed. (8 respondents: 5 service user organisations, 2 NHS Trusts and 1 individual) There are concerns that agencies commissioned by the NHS Boards may not be regarded as independent sources of advice and support. (4 respondents: 2 service user organisations, 1 voluntary organisation and 1 anonymous) Scottish Health Feedback 21
24 Those complained about may also need/want to access advice and support. (5 respondents: 4 NHS Boards and 1 professional body) In addition, it was suggested that: Citizens Advice Bureaux could be commissioned as they are able to provide specialist, expert advice and already work with local authorities. They could be given extra funding for trained staff to handle health related complaints. (4 respondents: 2 individuals, 1 service user organisation and 1 anonymous) There is already a requirement on NHS Boards to commission independent advocacy arrangements and it might be helpful to build on the existing advocacy network which is already developing independent monitoring systems. (7 respondents: 3 service user organisations, 2 public bodies, 1 NHS Board and 1 NHS Trust) In England the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH) will be identifying and disseminating quality standards for Independent Complaints and Advocacy Services (ICAS) - the proposed Scottish Health Council could do similar work in Scotland, learning from what is happening in England. (1 public body and 1 professional body) The Advocacy Safeguards Agency (ASA) was created specifically to work with commissioners in planning and commissioning advocacy provision across Scotland and to undertake independent evaluations of advocacy projects. The ASA Development Workers are involved in local Advocacy Planning and Implementation Groups for every NHS Board area in Scotland and could develop this work to include any future need, working in conjunction with NHS Boards and local authorities. (1 public body) It is important that patients know that there is a source of advice and assistance available to them, and it may be helpful if all such services are known by the same name, for example ICAS. (1 public body and 1 voluntary organisation) Forty-seven (32%) respondents did not agree with the proposals for supporting individuals. Over half of these (27) suggested that health councils should have the role of advice and support to complainants. This was the view of four NHS Boards and three NHS Trusts, 14 service user representatives, five individuals and one anonymous respondent. It was noted that health councils have been undertaking this role since their inception and that they had accumulated a wealth of knowledge and experience. This would be lost if the role was transferred from the health councils. It was suggested that the local Health Council have the role of providing advice and support and that the Scottish Health Council, in collaboration with NHS Quality Improvement Scotland, be responsible for monitoring the service and ensuring quality standards. Scottish Health Feedback 22
25 There is strong support for the role of supporting individuals to stay with Health Councils... The arguments put forward against this are weak, especially given the alternative scenario of NHS Boards across Scotland contracting with a number of different, and at times, small organisations. Health Councils do not currently allow assisting complaints to unduly influence their other roles, other than in a positive way - i.e. picking up on trends etc. The argument for Health Councils retaining this role is put forward in 'A New Public Involvement Structure for NHSScotland' The issue of supporting individuals through the complaints system is important and requires sensitivity and knowledge of the health care system by nominated individuals. Service user organisation Scottish Health Feedback 23
26 Feedback form Question 6 Question 6: Do you agree with the proposals for facilitation in the Family Health Services set out in paragraphs 43-48? Question 6 was answered either directly or indirectly by 150 respondents: 76% agreed with the proposals for facilitation in the Family Health Services as set out in paragraphs and 24% did not (see Table 4-6). Table 4-6: Respondents to Question 6 Category of respondent Yes n = % Response to Question 6 (n = 150) % of total Yes responses No n = 36 24% % of total No response NHS Trust 4 4% 1 3% NHS Board 9 8% 3 8% Courts and Legal bodies 0 0% 0 0% Public body 2 2% 1 3% Commercial organisation 2 2% 0 0% Service user organisation 21 18% 13 36% Voluntary organisation 5 4% 0 0% Professional body 8 7% 4 11% Individual 40 35% 8 22% Other 3 3% 1 3% Anonymous 20 18% 5 14% *percentages have been rounded The main point that produced comment from the respondents was the issue of impartiality, namely: can the PCT truly act as an impartial facilitator for patients, and what mechanisms should be in place to ensure that PCTs act impartially? Individual This issue was highlighted by 26 of the respondents of which 11 were service user organisations, five were individuals (including 2 health professionals responding in an individual capacity), two were professional bodies and two were NHS Boards. The remainder consisted of: one public body, two commercial organisations, one voluntary organisation, one other and one anonymous respondent. The majority (22) of respondents who commented on this issue suggested that lack of impartiality or perceived independence of the facilitator was a matter of importance. However, two respondents (1 voluntary organisation and 1 professional body) felt that impartiality would not be questioned by complainants as long as they were happy with the service they received: Scottish Health Feedback 24
27 It may not be seen as sufficiently independent by complainants at the outset, but what matters is that it works. Voluntary organisation There was some concern (5 respondents: 3 professional bodies, 1 service user organisation and 1 individual) that the Primary Care Trust (PCT) would find it difficult not to become embroiled in the complaint. The impartiality of the facilitator was also questioned if the Primary Care Trust was itself implicated in the complaint. In such an instance, there were questions as to whether the PCT facilitator could be involved in the case and, if not, what alternative facilitation would be made available for complainants (response by 3 professional bodies). unconvinced about the ability of PCTs to establish themselves as truly independent facilitators between medical practitioners and patients this proposal would prevent PCTs from carrying out a facilitation role if the PCT is itself one of the parties implicated in a complaint procedure. Professional body Twenty-two respondents (9 service user organisations, 5 NHS Boards, 4 NHS Trusts, 1 public body, 2 professional bodies and 1 voluntary organisation) suggested that greater clarity of the role of the facilitator would be required. Specific areas that require clarification were identified as: The differences between the role of the facilitator and the role of the conciliator, complaints officer and independent advice service. (12 respondents) Who would be employed as a facilitator and how they would be selected. (2 respondents) Where the facilitator would be based. (1 respondent) What training the facilitator would receive. (2 respondents) How facilitation would be monitored. (6 respondents) How standardisation of practice across Scotland would be achieved (2 respondents) What grade or level of seniority the facilitator would have. (3 respondents) How the facilitator would be able to provide support and advice and provide a written response without investigating the complaint (4 respondents): In para 45 it is stated that "the role of the 'facilitator' would not be to investigate the complaint, but to provide impartial advice and support to both parties". It is not clear how a facilitator would be able to provide advice or support to a member of the public without any powers of investigation, or the ability to check the factual accuracy of the allegation Public body Scottish Health Feedback 25
Complaints Handling. 27/08/2013 Version 1.0. Version No. Description Author Approval Effective Date. 1.0 Complaints. J Meredith/ D Thompson
Complaints Handling Procedure Version No. Description Author Approval Effective Date 1.0 Complaints Procedure J Meredith/ D Thompson Court (Jun 2013) 27 Aug 2013 27/08/2013 Version 1.0 Procedure for handling
More informationabcdefghijklmnopqrstu
Healthcare Policy and Strategy Directorate Quality Division Dear Colleague INTRODUCTION AND AVAILABILITY OF NEWLY LICENSED MEDICINES IN THE NHS IN SCOTLAND Dear Colleague This guidance sets out the policy
More informationNHS and independent ambulance services
How CQC regulates: NHS and independent ambulance services Provider handbook March 2015 The Care Quality Commission is the independent regulator of health and adult social care in England. Our purpose We
More informationThe Social Work Model Complaints Handling Procedure
The Social Work Model Complaints Handling Procedure Issued: December 2016 Scottish Public Services Ombudsman The Social Work Model Complaints Handling Procedure I 2 The Social Work Model Complaints Handling
More informationCan I Help You? V3.0 December 2013
Can I help you? Policy for the provision and management of patient feedback: comments, concerns or compliments, or complaints about NHS 24 and its services. Author: Patient Affairs Manager/ ADoN Clinical
More informationDear Colleague. 29 March 2018 GUIDANCE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PEER APPROVED CLINICAL SYSTEM (PACS) TIER TWO. Introduction
Directorate for Chief Medical Officer Chief Medical Officer Chief Pharmaceutical Officer Dear Colleague GUIDANCE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PEER APPROVED CLINICAL SYSTEM (PACS) TIER TWO Introduction
More informationMaking sure all licensed doctors have the necessary knowledge of English to practise safely in the UK
25 February 2014 Council 8 To consider Making sure all licensed doctors have the necessary knowledge of English to practise safely in the UK Issue 1 Amendments to our rules and regulations to strengthen
More informationUoA: Academic Quality Handbook
UoA: Academic Quality Handbook UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN COMPLAINT HANDLING PROCEDURE 1 POLICY The University is committed to providing a high level of service to students, applicants, graduates, and members
More informationNHS CHOICES COMPLAINTS POLICY
NHS CHOICES COMPLAINTS POLICY 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS: INTRODUCTION... 5 DEFINITIONS... 5 Complaint... 5 Concerns and enquiries (Incidents)... 5 Unreasonable or Persistent Complainant... 5 APPLICATIONS...
More informationabcdefghijklmnopqrstu
Director-General Health and Chief Executive NHS Scotland Dr Kevin Woods abcdefghijklmnopqrstu T: 0131-244 2410 F: 0131-244 2162 E: dghealth@scotland.gsi.gov.uk CEL 4 (2010) Dear Colleague INFORMING, ENGAGING
More informationStandards for optometrists, dispensing opticians and optical students
info@collaborateresearch.co.uk www.collaborateresearch.co.uk Standards for optometrists, dispensing opticians and optical students Consultation report Prepared for: June 2015 Contents 1. Executive summary...
More informationComplaints and Suggestions for Improvement Handling Procedure
Complaints and Suggestions for Improvement Handling Procedure Date of most recent review: 20 June 2013 Date of next review: August 2016 Responsibility: Quality Officer Approved by: Learning, Teaching and
More informationREVIEW October A Report on NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde s Consultation on Clyde Inpatient Physical Disability Services
REVIEW October 2008 A Report on NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde s Consultation on Clyde Inpatient Physical Disability Services Table of Contents 1. Summary 1 2. How NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde conducted
More informationStandards conduct, accountability
Standards of conduct, accountability and openness Standards of conduct, accountability and openness Throughout this document: members refers to all members of a board the Chair, the non-executives, the
More informationPCA (P) (2016) 1. Background
Healthcare Quality and Strategy Directorate Pharmacy and Medicines Division Dear Colleague STOMA APPLIANCE SERVICE IN THE COMMUNITY PUBLICATION OF STOMA CARE QUALITY AND COST EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW REPORT
More informationPublic Health Skills and Career Framework Multidisciplinary/multi-agency/multi-professional. April 2008 (updated March 2009)
Public Health Skills and Multidisciplinary/multi-agency/multi-professional April 2008 (updated March 2009) Welcome to the Public Health Skills and I am delighted to launch the UK-wide Public Health Skills
More informationHow NICE clinical guidelines are developed
Issue date: January 2009 How NICE clinical guidelines are developed: an overview for stakeholders, the public and the NHS Fourth edition : an overview for stakeholders, the public and the NHS Fourth edition
More informationThe Trainee Doctor. Foundation and specialty, including GP training
Foundation and specialty, including GP training The duties of a doctor registered with the General Medical Council Patients must be able to trust doctors with their lives and health. To justify that trust
More informationSupervising pharmacist independent
Supervising pharmacist independent prescribers in training Summary of responses to the discussion paper Introduction 1. Two of the General Pharmaceutical Council s core activities are setting standards
More informationTHE ADULT SOCIAL CARE COMPLAINTS POLICY
THE ADULT SOCIAL CARE COMPLAINTS POLICY April 2009 Reviewed: January 2018 1 Cambridgeshire County Council Contents 1.0 Purpose Page 3 2.0 Principles Page 3 3.0 Accessing information about how to raise
More informationGPs apply for inclusion in the NI PMPL and applications are reviewed against criteria specified in regulation.
Policy for the Removal of Doctors from the NI Primary Medical Performers List (NIPMPL) where they have not provided primary medical services in the HSCB area in the Preceding 24 Months Context GPs cannot
More informationSupporting information for appraisal and revalidation: guidance for psychiatry
Supporting information for appraisal and revalidation: guidance for psychiatry Based on the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties Core for all doctors. General Introduction The purpose of revalidation
More informationSupporting information for appraisal and revalidation: guidance for pharmaceutical medicine
Supporting information for appraisal and revalidation: guidance for pharmaceutical medicine Based on the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties Core for all doctors. General Introduction The purpose
More informationEnglish devolution deals
Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General Department for Communities and Local Government and HM Treasury English devolution deals HC 948 SESSION 2015-16 20 APRIL 2016 4 Key facts English devolution
More informationCLINICAL AND CARE GOVERNANCE STRATEGY
CLINICAL AND CARE GOVERNANCE STRATEGY Clinical and Care Governance is the corporate responsibility for the quality of care Date: April 2016 2020 Next Formal Review: April 2020 Draft version: April 2016
More informationA Case Review Process for NHS Trusts and Foundation Trusts
A Case Review Process for NHS Trusts and Foundation Trusts 1 1. Introduction The Francis Freedom to Speak Up review summarised the need for an independent case review system as a mechanism for external
More informationabcdefghijklmnopqrstu
Directorate for Chief Medical Officer, Public Health and Sport Sir Harry Burns, MPH FRCS (Glas) FRCP(Ed) FFPH Health and Social Care Directorate Pharmacy and Medicines Division Professor Bill Scott, MSc,
More informationAn independent thematic review of investigations into the care and treatment provided to service users who committed a homicide and to a victim of
An independent thematic review of investigations into the care and treatment provided to service users who committed a homicide and to a victim of homicide by Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust: Extended
More informationParliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Complaints about the NHS in England: Quarter
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Complaints about the NHS in England: Quarter 1 2018-19 Contents Our role 3 The purpose of this report 3 Our data 3 Our process 3 Step one: initial checks 4 Step
More informationA Participation Standard for the NHS in Scotland Standard Document
A Participation Standard for the NHS in Scotland Standard Document Scottish Health Council Scottish Health Council 2010 Published August 2010 ISBN 1-84404-916-7 You can copy or reproduce the information
More informationabcdefghijklmnopqrstu
NHS Circular: PCA(M)(2012)5 Health and Social Care Integration Directorate Primary Care Division abcdefghijklmnopqrstu Dear Colleague REVISED DIRECTED ENHANCED SERVICE EXTENDED HOURS ACCESS FOR GP PRACTICES
More informationModels of Support in the Teacher Induction Scheme in Scotland: The Views of Head Teachers and Supporters
Models of Support in the Teacher Induction Scheme in Scotland: The Views of Head Teachers and Supporters Ron Clarke, Ian Matheson and Patricia Morris The General Teaching Council for Scotland, U.K. Dean
More informationOur next phase of regulation A more targeted, responsive and collaborative approach
Consultation Our next phase of regulation A more targeted, responsive and collaborative approach Cross-sector and NHS trusts December 2016 Contents Foreword...3 Introduction...4 1. Regulating new models
More informationHigh level guidance to support a shared view of quality in general practice
Regulation of General Practice Programme Board High level guidance to support a shared view of quality in general practice March 2018 Publications Gateway Reference: 07811 This document was produced with
More informationGUIDANCE ON SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR REVALIDATION FOR SURGERY
ON SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR REVALIDATION FOR SURGERY Based on the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties Core Guidance for all doctors GENERAL INTRODUCTION JUNE 2012 The purpose of revalidation
More informationSupporting information for appraisal and revalidation: guidance for Supporting information for appraisal and revalidation: guidance for ophthalmology
FOREWORD As part of revalidation, doctors will need to collect and bring to their appraisal six types of supporting information to show how they are keeping up to date and fit to practise. The GMC has
More informationCLINICAL GOVERNANCE STRATEGY. For West Sussex PCT
CLINICAL GOVERNANCE STRATEGY For West Sussex PCT 2006 2009 Agreed by the Clinical Governance Committee: 31/01/07 Effective from: 31/01/07 Review: 31/07/07 Page 1 of 8 Contents Page Introduction 3 Principles
More informationStaffordshire and Stoke on Trent Adult Safeguarding Partnership Board Safeguarding Adult Reviews (SAR) Protocol
Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Adult Safeguarding Partnership Board Safeguarding Adult Reviews (SAR) Protocol SAR Process July 2014 (revised August 2017) Page 1 Contents 1. Introduction 2. Criteria 3.
More informationA fresh start for registration. Improving how we register providers of all health and adult social care services
A fresh start for registration Improving how we register providers of all health and adult social care services The Care Quality Commission is the independent regulator of health and adult social care
More informationHow CQC monitors, inspects and regulates NHS GP practices
How CQC monitors, inspects and regulates NHS GP practices March 2018 Updates to this guidance since October 2017: NEW annual provider information collection (for practices rated as good and outstanding)
More informationGPhC response to the Rebalancing Medicines Legislation and Pharmacy Regulation: draft Orders under section 60 of the Health Act 1999 consultation
GPhC response to the Rebalancing Medicines Legislation and Pharmacy Regulation: draft Orders under section 60 of the Health Act 1999 consultation Background The General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) is
More informationA Guide for Parents/Carers About Making a Complaint
Education Young Children s Service Nursery School and Young Children s Centres A Guide for Parents/Carers About Making a Complaint YCS COMPLAINTS PROCEDURE Introduction The Local Ombudsman s guidance states
More informationRoad Fuel Supply Disruption: Strategic Guidance for NHS Boards in Scotland. NHSScotland Resilience. Scottish Government
1 Document Control Document Title Road Fuel Supply Disruption: Strategic Guidance for NHS Boards in Scotland Owner & contact details Scottish Government Sponsor Area Publication Date Future Review Date
More informationComplaints policy RM07
Complaints policy RM07 Beware when using a printed version of this document. It may have been subsequently amended. Please check online for the latest version. Applies to: All service users Date of Board
More informationINTEGRATION SCHEME (BODY CORPORATE) BETWEEN WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL AND GREATER GLASGOW HEALTH BOARD
INTEGRATION SCHEME (BODY CORPORATE) BETWEEN WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL AND GREATER GLASGOW HEALTH BOARD This integration scheme is to be used in conjunction with the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Integration
More informationAnnual Complaints Report 2014/15
Annual Complaints Report 2014/15 1.0 Introduction This report provides information in regard to complaints and concerns received by The Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust between 01/04/2014 and 31/03/2015.
More informationNICE Charter Who we are and what we do
NICE Charter 2017 Who we are and what we do 1. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) is the independent organisation responsible for providing evidence-based guidance on health and
More informationINCENTIVE SCHEMES & SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS
MAY 2007 INCENTIVE SCHEMES & SERVICE LEVEL AGREEMENTS Practice Based Commissioning North and South Essex Local Medical Committees CLARIFYING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PBC GROUPS AND PCTS AIMS The aim of
More informationLevel 2: Exceptional LEP Review Visit by School Level 3: Exceptional LEP Trigger Visit by Deanery with Externality... 18
Postgraduate Training Ongoing Quality Review and Enhancement Framework Version 1: 2010 Contents Contents... 2 PMET Quality Review Framework Introduction... 3 Introduction... 3 Postgraduate Training Quality
More informationConsultation on developing our approach to regulating registered pharmacies
Consultation on developing our approach to regulating registered pharmacies May 2018 The text of this document (but not the logo and branding) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium,
More informationScottish Medicines Consortium. A Guide for Patient Group Partners
Scottish Medicines Consortium Advising on new medicines for Scotland www.scottishmedicines.org page 1 Acknowledgements Some of the information in this booklet is adapted from guidance produced by the HTAi
More informationKnowledge and Skills for. Government response to the Consultation on the Knowledge and Skills Statement for. Social Workers in Adult Services
Knowledge and Skills for Social Workers in Adult Services Government response to the Consultation on the Knowledge and Skills Statement for Social Workers in Adult Services March 2015 Title: Government
More informationAdults and Safeguarding Committee 19 March Implementing the Care Act 2014: Carers; Prevention; Information, Advice and Advocacy.
Adults and Safeguarding Committee 19 March 2015 Title Report of Wards Implementing the Care Act 2014: Carers; Prevention; Information, Advice and Advocacy Dawn Wakeling (Adult and Health Commissioning
More informationNHS. The guideline development process: an overview for stakeholders, the public and the NHS. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
NHS National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence Issue date: April 2007 The guideline development process: an overview for stakeholders, the public and the NHS Third edition The guideline development
More informationRaising Concerns or Complaints about NHS services
Raising Concerns or Complaints about NHS services Raising concerns and complaints A step by step guide Raising concerns and complaints Questions to ask yourself: 1. What am I concerned or dissatisfied
More informationGREATER GLASGOW NHS BOARD
ACF(M)02/04 Minutes: 25-35 GREATER GLASGOW NHS BOARD Minutes of a Meeting of the Area Clinical Forum held in Board Room 2, Dalian House 350 St Vincent Street, Glasgow on Monday 11 November 2002 at 2.00
More informationTransforming bailiff action. Ombudsman Services response to Ministry of Justice s consultation on Transforming bailiff action
Transforming bailiff action Ombudsman Services response to Ministry of Justice s consultation on Transforming bailiff action Consultation response to Transforming bailiff action: How we will provide more
More informationSpecialist mental health services
How CQC regulates: Specialist mental health services Provider handbook March 2015 The Care Quality Commission is the independent regulator of health and adult social care in England. Our purpose We make
More information4. NHS Boards are requested to bring this circular to the attention of all GP contractors.
Population Health Directorate Primary Care Division Addresses For Action Primary Care Leads NHS Boards For information Scottish General Practitioners Committee Policy Enquiries to: Michael Taylor Primary
More informationIAF Guidance on the Application of ISO/IEC Guide 61:1996
IAF Guidance Document IAF Guidance on the Application of ISO/IEC Guide 61:1996 General Requirements for Assessment and Accreditation of Certification/Registration Bodies Issue 3, Version 3 (IAF GD 1:2003)
More informationLocal Government Ombudsman Service Complaint Review. February Executive Summary
Local Government Ombudsman Service Complaint Review February 2017 Executive Summary 1. This review of service complaints covers the period from August 2016 to February 2017. I have examined 10 service
More informationService Standards Framework
Service Standards Framework 02 Contents Foreword 3 Introduction 4 1 Scope 5 2 Terms and definitions 6 3 Ombudsman Association member commitments 7 3.1 Accessibility 7 3.2 Communication 7 3.3 Professionalism
More informationSafeguarding Adults Reviews Protocol
Staffordshire and Stoke on Trent Adult Safeguarding Partnership Board Safeguarding Adults Reviews Protocol July 2016 SAR Process July 2014 (revised July 2016) Page 1 Contents 1. Introduction 2. Criteria
More informationNHS Governance Clinical Governance General Medical Council
NHS Governance Clinical Governance General Medical Council Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this call for evidence. The GMC has a particular role in clinical governance, as outlined below, and
More informationHomecare Support Support Service Care at Home 152a Lower Granton Road Edinburgh EH5 1EY
Homecare Support Support Service Care at Home 152a Lower Granton Road Edinburgh EH5 1EY Type of inspection: Unannounced Inspection completed on: 19 December 2014 Contents Page No Summary 3 1 About the
More informationRoyal College of Nursing Response to Care Quality Commission s consultation Our Next Phase of Regulation
General Comments Royal College of Nursing Response to Care Quality Commission s consultation Our Next Phase of Regulation As noted in our response last year to the first part of this consultation exercise,
More informationADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CLINICAL EXCELLENCE AWARDS NHS CONSULTANTS CLINICAL EXCELLENCE AWARDS SCHEME (WALES) 2008 AWARDS ROUND
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON CLINICAL EXCELLENCE AWARDS NHS CONSULTANTS CLINICAL EXCELLENCE AWARDS SCHEME (WALES) 2008 AWARDS ROUND Guide for applicants employed by NHS organisations in Wales This guide is available
More informationHow CQC monitors, inspects and regulates independent doctors and clinics providing primary care
How CQC monitors, inspects and regulates independent doctors and clinics providing primary care October 2017 CONTENTS MONITORING AND INFORMATION SHARING... 2 How we monitor independent doctors and clinics
More informationDelayed Discharges in NHS Scotland
Publication Report Delayed Discharges in NHS Scotland Figures from ober Census Publication date 25 November A National Statistics Publication for Scotland Contents Introduction... 2 Background... 2 National
More informationHighland Homeless Trust Housing Support Service 57 Church Street Inverness IV1 1DR Telephone:
Highland Homeless Trust Housing Support Service 57 Church Street Inverness IV1 1DR Telephone: 01463 718693 Inspected by: Lynn Ellison Type of inspection: Unannounced Inspection completed on: 17 January
More informationGuidance on supporting information for revalidation
Guidance on supporting information for revalidation Including specialty-specific information for medical examiners (of the cause of death) General introduction The purpose of revalidation is to assure
More informationHow to register under the Health and Social Care Act 2008
A new system of registration How to register under the Health and Social Care Act 2008 Guidance for new October 2010 Introduction This guidance is for all new who are required to register under the Health
More informationFramework for managing performer concerns NHS (Performers Lists) (England) Regulations 2013
Framework for managing performer concerns NHS (Performers Lists) (England) Regulations 2013 Information reader box NHS England INFORMATION READER BOX Directorate Medical Operations Patients and Information
More informationIntegration of health and social care. Royal College of Nursing Scotland
Integration of health and social care Royal College of Nursing Scotland As you know, over the last year the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) Scotland has been building its understanding of what will help
More informationIndependent Healthcare Regulation. Inspection Methodology
Independent Healthcare Regulation Inspection Methodology March 2018 Healthcare Improvement Scotland 2018 Published March 2018 You can copy or reproduce the information in this document for use within NHSScotland
More informationVision 3. The Strategy 6. Contracts 12. Governance and Reporting 12. Conclusion 14. BCCG 2020 Strategy 15
Bedfordshire Clinical Commissioning Group Quality Strategy 2014-2016 Contents SECTION 1: Vision 3 1.1 Vision for Quality 3 1.2 What is Quality? 3 1.3 The NHS Outcomes Framework 3 1.4 Other National Drivers
More informationPatient Experience Strategy
Patient Experience Strategy 2013 2018 V1.0 May 2013 Graham Nice Chief Nurse Putting excellent community care at the heart of the NHS Page 1 of 26 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 PURPOSE, BACKGROUND AND NATIONAL
More informationNational Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS-funded Nursing Care in England. Core Values and Principles
National Framework for NHS Continuing Healthcare and NHS-funded Nursing Care in England Core Values and Principles Contents Page No Paragraph No Introduction 2 1 National Policy on Assessment 2 4 The Assessment
More informationGMC TRACKING SURVEY 2016
GMC TRACKING SURVEY FINAL REPORT DECEMBER ABOUT COMRES ComRes provides specialist research and insight into reputation management, public policy and communications. It is a founding member of the British
More informationRegistrant Survey 2013 initial analysis
Registrant Survey 2013 initial analysis April 2014 Registrant Survey 2013 initial analysis Background and introduction In autumn 2013 the GPhC commissioned NatCen Social Research to carry out a survey
More informationHow CQC monitors, inspects and regulates adult social care services
How CQC monitors, inspects and regulates adult social care services November 2017 Contents MONITORING AND INFORMATION SHARING... 3 How we monitor and inspect adult social care services... 3 CQC Insight...
More informationDiscussion paper on the Voluntary Sector Investment Programme
Discussion paper on the Voluntary Sector Investment Programme Overview As important partners in addressing health inequalities and improving health and well-being outcomes, the Department of Health, Public
More informationGuidance For Health Care Staff Within NHS Grampian On Working With The Pharmaceutical Industry And Suppliers Of Prescribable Health Care Products
Title: Identifier: Guidance For Health Care Staff Within NHS Grampian On Working With The Pharmaceutical Industry And Suppliers Of Prescribable Health Care Products NHSG/guid/PharmInd/GMMG/738 Replaces:
More informationIndependent Mental Health Advocacy. Guidance for Commissioners
Independent Mental Health Advocacy Guidance for Commissioners DH INFORMATION READER BOX Policy HR / Workforce Management Planning / Performance Clinical Estates Commissioning IM&T Finance Social Care /
More informationUPDATE OF QUALITY ASSURANCE HANDBOOK
Box 7788 Canberra Mail Centre ACT 2610 Telephone 1300 653 227 TTY 1800 2606 420 www.facs.gov.au UPDATE OF QUALITY ASSURANCE HANDBOOK I am pleased to enclose the second edition of the Quality Assurance
More informationProfessional Support for Doctors in Training
Professional Support for Doctors in Training Guidance and support for trainees and trainers Professional Support for Doctors in Training 1. Introduction Almost all medical and dental trainees will complete
More informationNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE. Health and Social Care Directorate Quality standards Process guide
NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE Health and Social Care Directorate Quality standards Process guide December 2014 Quality standards process guide Page 1 of 44 About this guide This guide
More informationReady for revalidation. Supporting information for appraisal and revalidation
2012 Ready for revalidation Supporting information for appraisal and revalidation During their annual appraisals, doctors will use supporting information to demonstrate that they are continuing to meet
More informationReview of Follow-up Outpatient Appointments Hywel Dda University Health Board. Audit year: Issued: October 2015 Document reference: 491A2015
Review of Follow-up Outpatient Appointments Hywel Dda University Health Board Audit year: 2014-15 Issued: October 2015 Document reference: 491A2015 Status of report This document has been prepared as part
More informationOccupational Health and Safety for general medical and dental practitioners and their staff
Occupational Health and Safety for general medical and dental practitioners and their staff Short Life Working Group Report Scottish Executive Health Department OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY for GENERAL
More informationScottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO)
The Improvement Service ELECTED MEMBER BRIEFING NOTE Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) What is the purpose of the briefing note series? The Improvement Service (IS) has developed an Elected Members
More informationSupporting information for appraisal and revalidation: guidance for Occupational Medicine, June 2014
Supporting information for appraisal and revalidation: guidance for Occupational Medicine, June 2014 Based on the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties Core for all doctors. General Introduction
More informationAnnual Complaints Report 2017/2018
. Annual Complaints Report 2017/2018 CCG Information Reader Box Document Purpose CCG Website Link Title Author For information www.easterncheshireccg.nhs.uk NHS Eastern Cheshire Clinical Commissioning
More informationSupporting information for appraisal and revalidation: guidance for Occupational Medicine, April 2013
Supporting information for appraisal and revalidation: guidance for Occupational Medicine, April 2013 Based on the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and Faculties Core for all doctors. General Introduction
More information5. Integrated Care Research and Learning
5. Integrated Care Research and Learning 5.1 Introduction In outlining the overall policy underpinning the reform programme, Future Health emphasises important research and learning from the international
More informationconsultation A European health service? The European Commission s proposals on cross-border healthcare Key questions for NHS organisations
the voice of the NHS in Europe consultation AUGUST 2008 NO. 1 A European health service? Key questions for NHS organisations The draft proposals aim to clarify the rules around existing rights to get treatment
More informationEconomic and Social Research Council North West Social Science Doctoral Training Partnership
Last Update 2 nd August 2017 Economic and Social Research Council North West Social Science Doctoral Training Partnership CASE Studentship Application Guidance For October 2018 entry Introduction North
More informationConsultation on initial education and training standards for pharmacy technicians. December 2016
Consultation on initial education and training standards for pharmacy technicians December 2016 The text of this document (but not the logo and branding) may be reproduced free of charge in any format
More informationVISIT AND MONITORING REPORT
VISIT AND MONITORING REPORT Joint Mental Welfare Commission and Care Inspecorate visits to young people in secure care settings The Mental Welfare Commission- Who We Are and What We Do Our aim We aim to
More informationTowards a Framework for Post-registration Nursing Careers. consultation response report
Towards a Framework for Post-registration Nursing Careers consultation response report DH INFORMATION READER BOX Policy Estates HR / Workforce Commissioning Management IM & T Social Ca Planning / Finance
More information