APPLICATION FOR AUTHORISATION 360 DEGREE STAKEHOLDER SURVEY

Transcription

1 APPLICATION FOR AUTHORISATION 360 DEGREE STAKEHOLDER SURVEY

2 BLANK PAGE

3 Response to 360 stakeholder survey report CCG name: West Hampshire Completed by: Heather Hauschild, Chief Officer 1. Are there any factual errors you would like to highlight? Verbatim comment about CCG Commissioning of Out of Hours is incorrect. The SHIP Cluster led the programme. Input from CCG made clear what was required specifically for West New Forest and has been part of the programme to resolve the issue. The 360 survey states that arrangements with the Local Authority to deliver Public Health are not in place. This is incorrect; we have arrangements in place via Hampshire County Council. 2. Is there any further context or information you would like to be taken into account when reviewing this document? The area covered by West Hampshire CCG covers 54 practices. Arrangements are in place to engage clinicians in practices routinely via the locality structure, and the CCG Board has undertaken a number of events providing direct opportunities to talk to members. However we recognise that the size and scope of the CCG presents specific challenges which have been reflected within our Work Programme underpinning our Communications and Engagement Strategy. We also recognise that a significant focus has been on our main providers and plans are in place to engage with other providers directly. 3. If you feel this document is inconsistent with any aspect of your application, please a) describe the inconsistency and b) provide any necessary clarification N/A 4. Do you have any other comments? The feedback from local authorities reflects that there is a complex structure within West Hampshire. Close working arrangements are in place with Hampshire County Council, with representation at CCG Board level. However the CCG is represented by Locality Leads at lower tier Local Authority level. and it is clear that these relationships need strengthening. The comments regarding confidence that QIPP plans will deliver continuous improvements in quality within available resources reflect the way in which plans were developed in 2011/12 rolling forward a number of PCT plans. This has been recognised and our Clinical directors will be leading the process for 2012/13.

4 BLANK PAGE

5 West Hampshire CCG summary - FINAL - v FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY Summary: West Hampshire CCG Engagement and relationships: Overall, stakeholders do tend to feel they have been engaged by West Hampshire CCG and two-thirds are satisfied with the way in which they have been engaged so far. There are small pockets of dissatisfaction across some stakeholder groups, in particular, local authorities, NHS providers and other health professionals. For the most part, working relationships have been established and seven in ten say their working relationship is very or fairly good. Poorer relationships seem to exist in some of the same groups as previously mentioned. For example, two of the nine NHS provider stakeholders rate the relationship as fairly poor, while another two say they do not have a relationship with the CCG. However, perceived levels of engagement and relationships are broadly in line with the average for Wave 2. Finally, while the majority of stakeholders are positive about the leadership of West Hampshire CCG, there is some uncertainty about its ability to deliver continued quality improvements. Just over half agree that it will be able to do this, and this is lower than the Wave 2 average. Domain 1: Perceptions of the arrangements to ensure that the clinical perspective is represented within the CCG are mixed. Half of member practices have been involved in discussions about proposed configuration, structure and governance arrangements and three in five think the arrangements for participation and decision-making in the CCG are effective. The views of other clinical colleagues outside the CCG are split regarding the arrangements in place for them to input to discussions about local healthcare services. Two of the four stakeholders surveyed say arrangements are in place and only one is satisfied with the arrangements. However, health and wellbeing board members and stakeholders representing LINks/HealthWatch/ patient groups are more positive about the CCG s clinical leadership and engagement. Domain 2: It does not appear that local authority stakeholders were involved in discussions about the geographic area of the CCG, with none of the twelve saying they had any input. Satisfaction with the CCG s boundaries is mixed, with four stakeholders satisfied, four stating that there has been no change in the boundaries and three expressing dissatisfaction. Domain 3: The majority of stakeholders are at least aware of West Hampshire CCG s QIPP plans and priorities, and nearly three-quarters report them to be clear. Stakeholders are less likely than in other Wave 2 CCGs to have confidence that the QIPP plans will deliver continuous improvements in quality within the available resources though. NHS provider stakeholders are divided regarding West Hampshire CCG s commitment to helping them deliver their own QIPP plans. Domain 5: Collaborative arrangements appear reasonably strong. Most of the local authority stakeholders surveyed are aware of arrangements in place with the local authority to safeguard both children and adults, think they are appropriate and know at least how to contact the accountable individual. Where a need for integrated commissioning has been identified, they feel that the local authority is working well with the CCG to deliver shared plans. The CSS stakeholder reports a good relationship and confidence in West Hampshire CCG to collaborate with them. Domain 6: Most member practices report some understanding of the respective responsibilities of the practice and the governing body. Around half say that they are confident in the systems to sustain two-way accountability. In addition, there may be a lack of clarity about arrangements in place for the delegation of functions within the CCG. Results in this domain are generally a little lower than the Wave 2 average. The majority of member practices have confidence in the leadership provided by the Designate Chair, in line with the average for this wave.

6 West Hampshire CCG summary - FINAL - v FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY Summary: Across the majority of domains West Hampshire CCG is performing well and is in line with the average across aspiring Wave 2 CCGs. The majority of stakeholders are satisfied with the engagement and working relationships to date. However, West Hampshire CCG may wish to review how it engages with local authority and NHS provider stakeholders, who are less positive about their relationships with the CCG. It may also want to consider the arrangements for the delegation of functions to member practices as the CCG performs relatively less well than other CCGs here. Technical note: This summary is intended to be read in conjunction with the PowerPoint report, which provides a full breakdown of all of the results for the CCG. The findings are based on the results of a survey conducted with the CCG s stakeholders, as nominated by the CCG in line with a specification provided, between 16 July and 10 August Ipsos MORI sent all stakeholders an invitation to an online survey, followed by reminder s for those who did not respond and follow-up telephone interviews where these could be achieved. Please note that numbers of people completing the survey are extremely small for some questions. Differences between stakeholder groups will not be statistically significant. Comparisons to the Wave 2 average are only provided for questions asked of all stakeholders and member practices.