Future Forum in more than 200 listening events

Over the course of its eight week lifespan, the NHS Future Forum is expected to attend over 200 separate listening and discussion events and meetings. These range from small team meetings, to much larger events featuring hundreds of people.

During the week commencing 9 May, NHS Future Forum members listened to the following, among others:

  • The Royal College of General Practitioners
  • Trades Unions
  • The National Institute of health and Clinical Excellence
  • UK medical students
  • the BMA
  • The Association of UK University Hospitals
  • The Association of Directors of Public Health
  • Patient representatives in Yorkshire and Humberside, and the East of England
  • The Association of British Healthcare Industries
  • Frontline NHS staff in London, Nottinghamshire and Sheffield

This week (commencing 16 May), among other discussions, Forum members have met the following:

  • Allied health professionals (AHPs)  in London
  • Senior pharmacists
  • 100 members of the public, in cooperation with the Guardian
  • Members of the British Medical Association
  • Senior NHS managers at the NHS Confederation
  • the Royal College of Nursing
  • Patients and their representative charities, at both national and regional levels
  • GPs, through the Royal College of GPs, and East Midlands consortia
  • Local councillorsThe Academy of Medical Royal Colleges
  • Midwives and maternity care representatives
  • Frontline NHS staff across the country, including Papworth Hospital and the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital
  • Women leaders in the NHS
  • Representatives of the voluntary sector and social enterprise

Next week, Forum members are looking forward to meeting senior doctors at the Royal College of Physicians, Local Involvement Network (LINk) representatives, GP commissioners, NHS dentists, NHS scientists and NHS staff in Devon, Southampton and Surrey, among others.

In News, NHS Future Forum | Tagged , ,

31 Responses to Future Forum in more than 200 listening events

  1. Francesco Palma says:

    Can you please provide dates, times and venues where it will be possible to attend as up to now on this website not once has it been possible to attend an open listening event. All planned events have been carefully staged with little or no advanced notice thus making it near on impossible to know if then is actual a listening event in progress, it is only after the event and on this website one gets to know.
    Please provide a date in the west country, where it is possible to attend a ‘open event’ please.

    • The Patients Association is hosting two listening events in the south west this week – one on Monday 23rd May 2-4pm at Compass Disability, Unit 11 – 12 Belvedere Trading Estate
      Taunton, TA1 1BH and one on Friday 27th May 11.00am-1pm at the Community Library,Union Place, Truro TR1 1EP . Please phone 020 84239111 or email Mariya@patients-association.com for more details or a questionnaire if you cannot make the meeting and want to make your views heard

  2. Trevor and Diane Rudkin says:

    We think the changes to the NHS are just not acceptable. You can never leave anything alone 5 minutes. OK so in some parts of the country there were problems – well fix them, do not undo things in the areas that are good. It takes 18 months to 2 years to implement changes and get them working well. Just when we do, you want to change it all again. If GPs have the budget you need another Quango to oversee how they deal with all that money – so destroying Care Plus Trust has not saved anything. If the private system gets involved in a big way – bye bye our wonderful heath service. Friends in America envy us – no profit should be made from the health service (electricity or water – but there we are too late!!). Some things are essential to life and health and we need as a nation to control them ourselves – not to allow others to make profit out of them.

    • Emily Parry says:

      Economic theory is flawed, or rather, if you used it correctly, you might appreciate that the involvement of any private for-profit company will be detrimental to the provision of healthcare to the most needy – the poor and hardest workers.

      Any market in which the product or service being considered constitutes a ‘need’ for the buyer winds up with the price being set heavily in the favour of the seller. Why? Because people will go without other things – including other needs if needs be, to pay for a more basic need that they require. This is a demonstration of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs in action. Apply it to the company who is selling the product or service, and you get a similarly bleak picture when you consider for-profit versus non-for-profit (which appears to be something you haven’t even considered the ramifications of). For-profit companies rank profit as a basic ‘need’ second only to meeting their basic costs. Satisfying consumers is just a means to those ends, and profit comes directly at higher cost to consumers.

      No, this does not lead to ‘improved efficiency’ it simply leads to ‘improved corner cutting and sly out-of-the-public-eye agreements’. A good example is the privatisation of the energy markets. Why yes prices have fallen… except never by as much as they should have, and wait a minute – why am I being told that the box in which my meter sits (which is outside in my neighbour’s garden) to protect it from harm is now *my* responsibilty (or rather the house owner’s meaning our landlord who lives 250 miles away) and not my supplier’s?! Ah yes. Cost cutting. Offer one hand, hide the other.

      These are very, very simple concepts to understand. I fail to see why I have not seen a categoric ‘no’ for all proposed changes to the NHS when it comes to for-profit company involvement (it should be non-for-profit only). Haven’t you ever wondered why the NHS was set up and started as a charity, and not a for-profit company?!

      C’mon politicians, aren’t you supposed to be showing us just how much better an education your high-class socioeconomic backgrounds have afforded you?! Oh yes sorry I’ve done my homework and there’s no way a single one of you could afford to be in politics if you’d been earning a low wage with sponsors backing you prior to your current careers. Kinda makes any overriding decision you might make that affects the welfare of the rest of us somewhat fundamentally flawed and prone to bias, does it not? I guess you’d like us to for get that.

  3. Barry Hearth says:

    For there to be a true “listening excercise” there needs to be a genuine desire to get out and actually listen. Why do i get the impression that this is more of a PR stunt than anything else?

  4. Leo Redpath says:

    Where in the North West has there been or is one of the “Listening Events”?

    Time:Date:Venue Please

  5. George Webb says:

    As a LINk member in Doncaster since it was established and a public governor at Doncaster & Bassetlaw Hospitals FT for seven years I wish to raise the following point. Foundation Trust membership must exceed the LINk membership so what if any contacts are being made with the FT membership. I would further comment that the majority of contacts appear to be be with the professionals rather than the patients.

  6. Anna Berent says:

    I’m particularly worried about the ‘any willing provider’ clause, which is liable to bring consortia up against competition law if the lowest bid is not chosen, unless requirements are incredibly carefully stipulated.

  7. Deborah Colvin says:

    I would like to state why I believe this bill should be rejected in its entirety.

    • the bill promotes privatisation of provider
    • by doing this the bill promotes the provision of care by large companies whose primary interest is profits not health
    • this leads to public money being channeled to shareholders not health care
    • where profits are the primary concern, provision of ‘profitable’ care will take priority over provision of care based on need.
    • this leads to inequitable provision and the most needy getting the least
    • this is the demise of the NHS with ‘expensive’ patients being denied care as happens in the US where HMOs remove people from their care if they don’t comply with treatment or have alcohol problems etc.
    The net effect of this bill will be to destroy public trust in the NHS and doctors and to destroy the world class standard of equitable care available at present in this country. Public money will buy less medical care. The bill should be rejected entirely.

  8. Peter Barnes says:

    I am the Walks Co-ordinator of a Walking for Health group in Derby. Last week I was contacted by a “private sector partner” that was producing a glossy booklet about health services in Derbyshire. Much as I like the idea of publicising our group to local healthcare professionals, the asking price of £1095 for an A4 size page was completely out of range for our walking group which is entirely run by volunteers and self-funded. This is the sort of mismatch that can be expected to recur if health services are to be provided by a mixture of voluntary organisations and private sector companies.

  9. A Kennedy says:

    Please go ahead with the reforms, we have so much red tape in the NHS that it is ‘committe central’. We really have an NHS management service, no an NHS as the public believe it to be. Professional and vocational culture is not thriving as it will need to be with an aging population. I work in the front line, and it is a perpetual frustration that so many layers of control exist that to innovate is almost impossible. I see lots of unhappy nurses and doctors with the politics of PCT culture. These debates about the NHS and against these reforms will seem a lot less important when we face the real challenges of less GPs and more of the population experiencing long term conditions.

    This was a very brave thing for the governemnt to do, and it should be commended, unfortunately the management level will do everything that it can to stop the changes occuring and to continue in some re-engineered form. Use of NHS resources should not however be about middle management carrer aspirations and networks, but about top class professional care and culture. We have whole stratas that never see a patient. Please continue with the reforms

  10. Stuart Bolton says:

    I live in Sheffield and expect that I will have a chance to take part in this consultation exercise, so I am requesting the dates in my area for events that I can put my views forward on the future of the NHS.

    I am a member of the public and do not fall in to the groups covered in your current list of groups for consultation so have not had an opportunity so far

    As I say to my children – you show people you are listening and that you have heard what they have said by doing what they ask. Fairly simple really.

  11. Michael says:

    I am finding it impossible to find a schedule of future ‘listening events’ — is the list so secret? Are the events so secret? Has anyone tried to extract a list via a FOI request? Really, this consultation exercise seems at least partially deaf to public participation [1]. Perhaps someone could refer the exercise to an otolaryngologist?

    [1] See youGov poll, http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/yg-archives-life-38degrees-andrewlansleynhslistening-190511.pdf

  12. Audrey Green says:

    Like the previous comment, I am very worried about the possible results of the “any willing provider” clause. If private, profit making concerns are allowed to ‘cherry-pick’ treatments, the effects on many hospitals could be disastrous. What we want from our NHS is good quality treatment at the nearest possible place, and integration with social care services.

    • Rod Jarvis says:

      I too, concur with your comment. I am very suspicious of ‘Private Sector’ providers. They tend to look after share holders, not people with illnesses etc.,that are difficult treat.

      I would prefer N I C E, and the N H S, make more use of ‘Best Practice’, rather than, Best Value.

  13. Jim ALlen says:

    As this is the only way to comment!!!

    I don’t want a competition – I want to be healthy –
    I don’t want meaninless choice – I want to see a relevant specialist in a reasonable time.
    I don’t want to be asked ‘what do you think is wrong – I want someone to tell me whats wrong and cure the problem.
    I don’t want to hear of telephone numbers for salaries for paper shufflers and low paid nurses I want Proper working conditions for nurses with time for them to actually nurse….
    In short I don’t care if the Health services are public or private but I don’t want to pay ‘twice’ or provide a profit for some foreign company

  14. K Sankar says:

    I stumbled upon this. There should be more publicity about this with details of how people could contribute to the listening exercise. I find it surprising that social network media such as twitter and facebook are not being used to publicise this exercise and disseminate information on any scheduled events.

  15. Bristol DEF says:

    When is the government going to listen to – and give a satisfactory answer to – the question of GPs having a conflict of interest in terms of their hypocratic oath to put patient needs first and their money-management role within GP commissioning?

    Given the hypocratic oath, how can it even be legal?

    It is hard enough already to get to see a GP who you have seen often enough that they are familiar with, and have an adequate knowledge of, one’s health history and impairments (in the case of Disabled people) as it is. How is this able to improve under GP commissioning?

    Thirdly, where in any proposed changes to make the NHS more receptive and responsive to the patient, is the training to get health service employees to acknowledge, respect, and therefore take into account, the patients knowledge of their own body, experience of their symptoms and expertise in their own impairments?

  16. Void Excercise says:

    This listening exercise has to be stopped and corrected.
    I am deeply outraged that this listening exercise has been designed and implemented in the way it is.

    - There is not enough publicity. No one I know (family or friends) know that there is a listening exercise, let alone how to get involved

    - The interface has been just designed so that new participants cannot read what others have said. Am I supposed to make my point without reading the 529 other ideas that others are discussing below me?

    - 4 different sections make the navigation more difficult, and sythetizing the information impossible. This is a good way of preventing anyone from being in the position of making their point

    - There is no summary of what is being discussed which can be easily reached from this page. A document stating clearly what changes we are exactly discussing should be visible at all times.

    - There is no information on how these random comments by users are going to be processed, valued or used. There is no statement on what guarantees that they are going to be even read by someone

    - Any ethical and true listening exercise should start by listening to patients and citizens, who are the ones sustaining whatever system we come up with, and the ones suffering the consequences of any bad choice in this respect. The only section of society who seem to be giving their view here are mostly doctors, nurses and other institution workers who are aware of this sham.

    Shame on this listening exercise, Shame on Mr Andrew Lansley. Shame on our government. Shame on this authoritarian and corporation-driven proposals.
    We are citizens. We are patients. We are tax-payers. We are consumers. We have the right to be listened to, and above all, we have the right to be respected. Stop insulting us. Stop lying to us.

  17. Allied Health Professional Lead says:

    I am sure that at the events held across the country you will all hear similar themes from AHP’s and I would like to add my support for those views: There is a need for leadership and equal representation for all, with AHPs maintaining their role at the centre of rehabilitation and therefore in the delivery of QIPP. There will be a detrimental impact on CPD and preregistration of any qualified provider unless there are robust requirements to support pre-reg and work across boundaries. The more responses we submit the more likely we are to bring about change.

    The structures and established behaviours prevent the full utilisation of AHP’s and prevent our having an equal voice; our ability to challenge is also often adversely affected.
    AHP’s have very frequently been clustered under the nursing agendas with the unintended consequence of preventing our voice being heard in many environments e.g. Foundation Trusts have to include a nurse and a medic on the board with the result that in, say, an Ambulance Trust even paramedics are excluded. A key element of the workforce therefore ends up without having a voice on the Board.
    AHP’s are a clear part of the solution to build affordable and sustainable healthcare. To overcome the historical behaviours, which are polarising and paralysing innovation and development (and which will increase as uncertainty increases we would like to ask for an AHP presence/voice at every level of decision making:

    o National Commissioning Board

    o Pubic Health Board

    o Any planned distributed sub National presence

    o PCT cluster equivalents

    o Commissioning consortia

    o Skills networks

    o Health and Wellbeing Board

    This would ensure our equal voice to bring challenge and help make changes to enable the barriers to be removed to patient care/quality/outcomes.

    We ask you either to mandate our presence on the various levels or to mandate no-one. Being ‘tucked under’ any profession means that the issues pertinent to patient care that AHPs impact upon – will continue to be lost to the debate.

    Finally, there is the issue of the impact of any qualified provider. E.g I have been recently informed about how the removal of MSK services to a separate provider with no requirement to support pre-reg or post reg has impacted on rotation posts and there is the potential that physios will not acquire the skills they need to fulfil entire pathway

  18. Kathryn Tickell says:

    I haven’t really seen much evidence of anybody listening – or even telling us where to go and who to speak to in order for them to be ABLE to listen to us.
    It took me quite a while to find this website – I didn’t see it publicised. All I’ve seen is the supposed fact that Andrew lansley is currently doing a ‘listening exercise.’
    Just a PR stunt really.
    The NHS needs to be supported and protected.

  19. Matt Raine says:

    Nearly at the end of this ‘phoney’ consultation. No public events that I have seen/heard of in Birmingham where ordinary people can get involved. Many people, low paid, elderly etc don’t have internet access, just how have they listened to them?
    If competition was so great why isn’t there Universal health provision pre Obama in the states? Competition will lead to private companies taking the profitable parts and leaving the loss making core services to the taxpayer.
    My gas bills keep going up along with Energy company profits – hardly a great show of competition! Now people are mad enough to suggest this for the NHS. However the NHS is organised it has to be based on collaboration not competition. Time to Scrap the bill totally

  20. Elizabeth Hallworth says:

    If the NHS is heading towards privatisation, i’m heading off to Germany where they still care about people’s health. I have free VIP private health care through my company and i got rid of it as it wasn’t worth the free tax i paid on it. For specialist new treatments, you can forget about private healthcare funding them. I get much better treatment on the NHS and am proud of the NHS as it is. Sure there are problems as it serving so vast a population on a tight budget but i think it works well. Taking away funding for the NHS is just another broken conservative promise.

  21. P Burton says:

    How can a government propose these dangerous, untried changes at the same time as proposing to take out the clause ‘duty to provide’ health care for everyone. Are they already preparing for when the NHS is taken over by the private companies and only those who can afford the best treatments will get it, as in America. They say they want more local control. My local council, Torbay, has just been sued for cutting provision of care for a few disabled people. They wanted to cut one poor lady’s provision for meals. As she said she would have been left to starve as she is too disabled to provide for herself. Without “duty to provide’ clauses no one would be safe.

  22. B Glover says:

    As with all privatizations in previous governments, it will be end customer who suffers the most. With privatization, comes new ‘customers’ ie the share holder. It is the big group shareholders that will eventually shape the new privatised ‘NHS’. Guess what? The patient, who previously was the end customer, won’t have a choice. End of NHS as we know it. End of a great caring organisation that made the UK the envy of the world!

  23. Judith Joy says:

    I strongly agree with the previous comment. The Health Minister and the Ministry must have the firm stated duty to provide health care for everyone, as it is now. Does Mr. Lansley think we are so stupid we will not see where his proposals are taking us? The reports of government representatives assuring private health providers in the US of future opportunities in the UK Health market show the real reasons for his proposed wholesale disruption of the NHS, which is already underway. Some consultation process! The profit motive has no place in health care. Our NHS is a service not a marketplace.

  24. Zahra Zomorrodian says:

    Did I miss Newcastle or does this government not believe in England beyond the Watford Gap?

    The changes are just a smokescreen to allow the government to privatise the NHS… How much money has Mr Lansley received from the Private Healthcare Lobby? Don’t tell me it doesn’t colour his thinking.

    I am watching ITV balls up the Champions League Final – proof positive that the private sector isn’t always better!

    I currently have a problem with my knee, part of my care has been provided by a private sector physiotherapy company – getting to see a physio was quick – BUT – getting a referral for an MRI was not so easy. The physio only referred me in the end because she didn’t have an appointment, she didn’t think I had a major problem. The MRI revealed two meniscus tears and the subsequent surgery revealed a complete rupture of my ACL! The private sector is not always better.

    And once profit becomes the primary motivation in a patient’s care then the best course of treatment isn’t the one offered.

    PLEASE STOP THIS UNNECESSARY, UNCALLED FOR TOP DOWN REORGANISATION.

  25. katie says:

    To be democratic , you would consult the electorate on proposed changes…..the organisations can also have their say but they do not have a vote….this surely starts with the people!

  26. Judith Briscall says:

    I want to tell the NHS listening exercise that I am very worried about Mr Lansley’s proposals for the NHS. I think he is going about reforming the NHS in completely the wrong way.

    For example, I am concerned that changes of this scale are being proposed without a decent trial period first. Why is the government not trialling these changes in a few areas for several years first, to see if they work? Why is Parliament being asked to vote them through without evidence that they will benefit patients? The government ‘duty to provide’ a comprehensive service must be kept. To drop this would erode the whole foundations of the NHS. As a person with Multiple Sclerosis and a parent of a diabetic person with Prader-Willi Syndrome, I am desperately concerned at the prospect of allowing ‘cherry picking’ by private companies. What hope would there be for people like my daughter and myself? Incurable conditions are of no interest to profit making bodies. The NHS should focus on providing quality health care, not on competition. The role of the ‘Monitor’ should reflect this and promote collaboration, not profiteering, which must be prevented. Any changes to the NHS should be trialled in small areas first for several years – otherwise, how do we know what would be ‘better’? I want my excellent GP to remain just that – the doctor I go to see, not a buyer/ administrator. Other people with different skills can do that.
    Britain is proud of its health service for a reason. DO NOT BREAK OUR NHS!!!

  27. Jean Preston says:

    My concern is that these changes will adversely affect those in our society who are already struggling to make ends meet. As a single person with a mortgage and bills to pay on a low single salary things are tough enough without having to worry about whether I can afford the healthcare that has always been available at no charge.

  28. Taylor says:

    American, private health-insurance companies ARE FAVOURED (our M.P.advised), and so ONLY HEALTHY PEOPLE WILL BE OFFERED INSURANCE, believe me!
    l’ve lived with the nightmare, when you have to consider whether ins. will pay (only if admitted to the hosp. from A.E., but NOT if entire treatmment is in A.E., so you have to pay for the private care!!!)!
    You have to study the ever-changing “covered” treatments before going to a doctor or hospital, and the premiums are ever-changing, so you live in fear of whether you can afford them, or pay for more private care, to keep the premiums somewhat affordable!
    PLEASE LISTEN TO US: NO PROFITS IN THE N.H.S.! THANK-YOU!