Better Health, Better Experience, Better Engagement

This document is a practical framework to help emerging clinical commissioning groups think through how they build engagement and insight into the care experience and into commissioning from the outset.

It provides practical advice, suggestions for action and signposts examples of good practice and evidence of what works. It brings together the learning and evidence of good engagement and experience from emerging clinical commissioning groups across the country. It is intended to help others build on their learning and existing evidence, so that time and effort is not wasted in reinventing the wheel.

If you have any comments on this document please contact Jonathan Leahy at the Department of Health at Jonathan.Leahy@dh.gsi.gov.uk by the end of September 2011. All the comments we receive will be taken into consideration when producing a final version of the document, which we hope to publish in the autumn.

Download the document here (PDF)
Better health, better experience, better engagement – Aug 2011

In Pathfinder Learning Network | Tagged , , ,

One Response to Better Health, Better Experience, Better Engagement

  1. Rod Whiteley says:

    I thought it over-long and sloppily worded in places, though that’s fair enough for an early draft.

    More seriously, the tone is preachy rather than professional, dogmatic rather than analytical. Subtitled “why good commissioning needs patients and public at its heart” it never actually says why. It merely repeats the premise over and over again, as if the author hasn’t actually worked out why good commissioning needs patients and public at its heart, or doesn’t really believe it but has been told to say it.

    I got the feeling much of this might have been written many years ago, and it has just been tarted up with a few references to HealthWatch and CCGs. For example, there’s no clarity around patient choice or clinical leadership, and Any Qualified Provider isn’t mentioned at all. The examples emphasize process measures of success instead of outcomes for patients. The independent public engagement roles of Health & Wellbeing Boards, local HealthWatch and Foundation Trusts don’t appear to have been understood.

    The message seems to be that commissioning can still be PCT-like top-down micromanagement as long as you tick some “bring people with you” boxes. I don’t think that’s much of a practical framework in the present context.

    A better approach might be to consider the choices that CCGs have in negotiating boundaries with providers and other independent bodies like HealthWatch, so there is clarity about roles, responsibilities and freedom to innovate in matters of patient experience and public engagement. Different CCGs will no doubt draw the boundaries differently, and they’ll need outcome measures to understand to what extent they have got them right in relation to local needs.

Leave a Reply

Leave a comment

*