Participation Feedback We are developing a routine process

Participation Feedback We are developing a routine process for understanding and evaluating the difference participation makes. All our patient representatives will receive a survey following or during their participation. We have trialed this approach with 15 patients who have taken part in quality visits, procurement, hospital site planning, reader panel, medicine optimisation committee and networking events. • • • Were you given sufficient support and information to fully participate in the survey? Yes: 14 No: 1 To what extent do you feel the patient perspective was considered and included (1 being not at all and 5 extensively): 1: 0 2: 1 3: 2 4: 7 5: 5 Based on your ratings, please give suggestions on what could be improved (feedback on following pages) Our next steps will be to discuss the feedback with our Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) Committee and agree ways of improving the ratings and the outcomes. © 2018 Herts Valley Clinical Commissioning Group

Participation Feedback • Nothing really: at the pre-visit meeting I was welcomed as part of the team, my observations were noted down at the de-brief and I was asked to review the team leader’s report. • The process and information were complicated and patient were in a small minority, but grew in confidence. I would have benefitted from having the mode of operation and principles explained in more depth before we started and was a tad concerned that a draft report was not provided to the patient reps for comment before the final report that went to the decision-making board. • Little by little I have felt myself to be a full member of this group and that my views and suggestions have been taken into account: but I have concluded that the process has been slow because (a) a lot of separate organisations are involved and (b) no one has the authority to compel them to collaborate © many key decisions are taken outside of the working group and (d) depend on the attitude of the big players whose own views are not given fully to the meeting. • I have been provided with pre-meeting reading and felt that my contributions have been listened to and taken into account. I do not know if they have been acted on or examined or followed up. (I suspect that goes for everybody's verbal contribution. ) • I have been provided with masses of pre-meeting reading and felt welcomed to the Board, but am conscious that I am in a very small minority. I have deliberately kept my contributions to non-technical and patient-relevant topics and think that they have been listened to, but do not know if they have had any effect. . I was interested to note that my contribution about Nascot Lawn at one meeting was not minuted © 2018 Herts Valley Clinical Commissioning Group

Participation Feedback • I acknowledge that it is particularly difficult to manage the patient view in hospital development projects. I joined the project group as an independent objective member of the public. I was able to consider the information considered in the meetings and able to give my views: I always felt listened to, involved and valued. I always tried to remind the group of the range of views held by other members of the public too and to encourage management of them. There were other patient representatives of the group who came from a campaigning background and tended to interpret "not getting what you want" as "not being listened to". I refute this standpoint as I believe that patient perspective was considered: the aim was always to provide the best possible deliverable project. To improve meaningful patient participation, the issue of keeping the general public informed needs to be constantly addressed. I would like to see more 'drip feed' of objective information to the general public making use of a whole range of media. Information on the HV website and in press releases are good, however, the general public do not see them. People can only give a reasonable view if they are well informed about the facts relating to the issue. • The pace of progress has been slower than some would have wished and this has been reflected in public perceptions. Eg The launch of the HH UTC was publicised as being an improved service. This resulted in increased public expectations (eg more near patient testing) which has only very slowly become a reality. Now St Albans residents have the expectation of something happening. . . The general public perspective is often 'nothing happens' so my suggestion would be to communicate more to try to educate the public so they have more realistic expectations. © 2018 Herts Valley Clinical Commissioning Group

Participation Feedback • The pace of progress has been slower than some would have wished and this has been reflected in public perceptions. E. g the launch of the HH UTC was publicised as being an improved service. This resulted in increased public expectations (eg more near patient testing) which has only very slowly become a reality. Now St Albans residents have the expectation of something happening. . . The general public perspective is often 'nothing happens' so my suggestion would be to communicate more to try to educate the public so they have more realistic expectations. • It would be nice to be sent final versions of the drafts that we comment on. It's currently hard to know if our comments are actually useful, and used (I am almost always thanked for my contributions). • Better feedback on some consultations and a specific opportunity to comment on areas beyond the textual content. For example, in consultations on recent leaflets describing new Community Health services we weren't explicitly asked to comment on the suitability of venues listed for patients in our area (which are further than existing services in the case of Tring patients), although I did. Briefing papers rarely have content on the patient experience • • Allow patient input on a greater range of criteria - I felt that the areas in which patient input was sought were too limited. I believe we're still trying to define the role of patient voice and this is an under used resource. • The opportunities for PPG Members to collaborate and provide mutual support aren't being exploited in my experience © 2018 Herts Valley Clinical Commissioning Group