Limits...
Factors that influence the way local communities respond to consultation processes about major service change: A qualitative study.

Barratt H, Harrison DA, Raine R, Fulop NJ - Health Policy (2015)

Bottom Line: Government policy emphasises the importance of clinical leadership and 'evidence' in public consultation.However, an engagement process based on this approach fuelled hostility to the proposals.Policymakers should not assume communities can be persuaded to accommodate service change which may result in reduced access to care.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, UK. Electronic address: h.barratt@ucl.ac.uk.

No MeSH data available.


Key reasons why reconfiguration proposals are referred to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4561526&req=5

fig0005: Key reasons why reconfiguration proposals are referred to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel.

Mentions: In England, Section 242 of the NHS Act 2006 requires health care managers and purchasers – known as commissioners – to seek the views of affected parties, including patients and the public, if changes to local NHS services are being considered [11]. However, this consultation process often involves protracted, sometimes hostile local debates, leading to delays which some argue pose ‘significant risks to the delivery of safe services’ [12]. At the same time, there is a perception that the public do not in reality have an opportunity to influence the outcome of the decision-making process [5]. The Independent Reconfiguration Panel (IRP), provides the UK government with independent advice about reconfiguration proposals, when local agreement cannot be reached [1]. Local government representatives in affected areas may refer proposals to the Secretary of State for Health if they believe either that the consultation has been inadequate, or that the proposals are not in the best interest of the local population. The Secretary of State may then seek the advice of the IRP [12]. By mid-2012 the IRP had undertaken 19 full reviews of contested plans for health service change in England and offered written advice on several others [3]. The most frequent reasons for referral to the IRP are listed in Fig. 1[1].


Factors that influence the way local communities respond to consultation processes about major service change: A qualitative study.

Barratt H, Harrison DA, Raine R, Fulop NJ - Health Policy (2015)

Key reasons why reconfiguration proposals are referred to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel.
© Copyright Policy - CC BY
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4561526&req=5

fig0005: Key reasons why reconfiguration proposals are referred to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel.
Mentions: In England, Section 242 of the NHS Act 2006 requires health care managers and purchasers – known as commissioners – to seek the views of affected parties, including patients and the public, if changes to local NHS services are being considered [11]. However, this consultation process often involves protracted, sometimes hostile local debates, leading to delays which some argue pose ‘significant risks to the delivery of safe services’ [12]. At the same time, there is a perception that the public do not in reality have an opportunity to influence the outcome of the decision-making process [5]. The Independent Reconfiguration Panel (IRP), provides the UK government with independent advice about reconfiguration proposals, when local agreement cannot be reached [1]. Local government representatives in affected areas may refer proposals to the Secretary of State for Health if they believe either that the consultation has been inadequate, or that the proposals are not in the best interest of the local population. The Secretary of State may then seek the advice of the IRP [12]. By mid-2012 the IRP had undertaken 19 full reviews of contested plans for health service change in England and offered written advice on several others [3]. The most frequent reasons for referral to the IRP are listed in Fig. 1[1].

Bottom Line: Government policy emphasises the importance of clinical leadership and 'evidence' in public consultation.However, an engagement process based on this approach fuelled hostility to the proposals.Policymakers should not assume communities can be persuaded to accommodate service change which may result in reduced access to care.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, UK. Electronic address: h.barratt@ucl.ac.uk.

No MeSH data available.