Download
erewash ccg n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Erewash CCG PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Erewash CCG

Erewash CCG

113 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Erewash CCG

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Erewash CCG CCG authorisation 360o stakeholder survey report

  2. Background and objectives • In April 2012 the NHS Commissioning Board Authority (NHSCBA) published Clinical commissioning group authorisation: a draft guide for applicants which sets out the thresholds for authorisation that CCGs must meet. • The vision for CCGs is rooted in three principles: giving patients more power; focusing on healthcare outcomes, quality and reducing inequalities; and giving frontline professionals greater freedoms and a strong leadership role. For CCGs to fulfill these principles successfully, they will need to form strong relationships with a range of stakeholders, including patients, clinical colleagues both within and outside their CCG, colleagues in local authorities and health and wellbeing board(s), providers, other commissioners and those who will provide commissioning support for the CCG (where appropriate). The potential of CCGs will only be realised if these relationships are in place. • Therefore, a key part of the authorisation process is the CCG authorisation 360o stakeholder survey, which has been conducted with a broad range of stakeholders connected to each CCG. In a system where much will be achieved through relationships that harness the expertise of different stakeholders, the survey is an essential part of understanding how those relationships are developing and therefore the CCG’s readiness for authorisation. The survey allows the NHSCB to learn more about the aspiring CCG’s relationships with its stakeholders and therefore to assess whether the relationships forged during transition are likely to provide sufficient basis for effective commissioning by CCGs.

  3. Methodology and technical details • The applicant CCG provided the list of stakeholders for the CCG authorisation 360o stakeholder survey as specified by the stakeholder framework which was provided to them. The following stakeholder groups were included in the survey: • The survey was conducted primarily online. Nominated stakeholders were initially invited to participate via email. Those stakeholders who did not respond to the email invitation were telephoned by an Ipsos MORI interviewer who encouraged response and offered the opportunity to complete the survey by telephone. • Within the survey, stakeholders were asked a series of questions about their working relationships with the CCG. In addition, as each stakeholder group has different areas of experience and knowledge, they were presented with a short, personalised section of questions that was specific to the stakeholder group they represent. Each question is linked to one of the six domains of authorisation set out in Clinical commissioning group authorisation: a draft guide for applicants.

  4. Methodology and technical details • Fieldwork was conducted between 13 August and 7 September 2012. • 44 of Erewash CCG’s stakeholders completed the survey. The overall response rate was 86% which varied across the stakeholder groups as follows:

  5. Interpreting the results • Results for each question are shown in percentages (%) and the number of stakeholders giving a certain answer (n). • In the tables, the number of stakeholders giving a certain answer are included in brackets. • For questions with fewer than 30 stakeholders answering, we strongly recommend that you look at the number of stakeholders giving each answer rather than the percentage, as the percentage can be misleading when based on so few stakeholders. • The number of stakeholders answering (the base size) is stated for each question in this report. • The base size is shown at the bottom of each chart and in every table. • In some cases, percentages have been rounded up or down to ensure that the figures in a pie chart sum to 100%. • Where the results for net scores (e.g. strongly/tend to agree) do not match the results you obtain from adding percentages in the chart, this is due to rounding. This work was carried out in accordance with the requirements of the international quality standard for market research, ISO 20252:2006 and with the Ipsos MORI Terms and Conditions which can be found here

  6. Engagement and relationships

  7. Engagement and relationships Base: All stakeholders (44) Overall, to what extent, if at all, do you feel you have been engaged by Erewash CCG?

  8. Engagement and relationships Base: All stakeholders who feel they have been engaged (44) And how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way in which Erewash CCG has engaged with you so far?

  9. Engagement and relationships Base: All stakeholders (44) To what extent do you agree or disagree that Erewash CCG has listened to your views where you have provided them?

  10. Engagement and relationships Base: All stakeholders (44) To what extent do you agree or disagree that Erewash CCG has acted on your suggestions?

  11. Engagement and relationships Base: All stakeholders (44) Overall, how would you rate your working relationship with Erewash CCG?

  12. Engagement and relationships To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the leadership of Erewash CCG …?* Base: All stakeholders (44) * Please note that the name of the CCG was also substituted into the question statements. The statements read ‘the CCG’ on this chart for presentation purposes.

  13. Engagement and relationships Base: All stakeholders (44) To what extent do you agree or disagree with following statements about the leadership of Erewash CCG …? The leadership of Erewash CCG has the necessary blend of skills and experience

  14. Engagement and relationships Base: All stakeholders (44) To what extent do you agree or disagree with following statements about the leadership of Erewash CCG …? There is clear and visible leadership of Erewash CCG

  15. Engagement and relationships Base: All stakeholders (44) To what extent do you agree or disagree with following statements about the leadership of Erewash CCG …? I have confidence in the leadership of Erewash CCG to deliver its plans and priorities

  16. Engagement and relationships Base: All stakeholders (44) To what extent do you agree or disagree with following statements about the leadership of Erewash CCG …? The leadership of Erewash CCG will be able to deliver continued quality improvements

  17. Engagement and relationships: Summary

  18. Engagement and relationships: Summary • Overall, stakeholders are positive about the engagement that has taken place so far with Erewash CCG. • Four in five say they have been engaged at least a fair amount and the same proportion rates their working relationship with Erewash CCG as good. • This reflects a high level of satisfaction with the way in which they have been engaged as most feel listened to and their views acted on. • On each of these measures, the CCG performs very much in line with the average across all aspiring Wave 3 CCGs. • The leadership of the CCG is also rated positively by the majority of stakeholders. • There are just a small number of stakeholders from NHS providers, LINks/ HealthWatch/ patient groups and other health professionals who appear less engaged or less satisfied with the engagement from the CCG.

  19. Domain 1: A strong clinical and multi-professional focus which brings real added value

  20. Criteria 1.1D: CCG members recognise local quality priority areas identified in CCG plans. Base: All member practices (12) How much, if anything, would you say you know about Erewash CCG’s priority areas for quality improvement?

  21. Criteria 1.1D: CCG members recognise local quality priority areas identified in CCG plans. Which areas for quality improvement, if any, do you understand to be identified as a priority for Erewash CCG ?* Base: All member practices who have at least heard of CCG’s priority areas for quality improvement (12) * Results shown for all over 8%

  22. Criteria 1.1D: CCG members recognise local quality priority areas identified in CCG plans. To what extent do you agree or disagree that these are the right priority areas for Erewash CCG? Base: All member practices who have at least heard of CCG’s priority areas for quality improvement (12)

  23. Criteria 1.2D: Member practices are involved in decision-making processes and, where appropriate, there are clear arrangements for delegation of functions. Base: All member practices (12) How involved, if at all, do you feel you have been in decisions about the proposed configuration, structure and governance arrangements for Erewash CCG?

  24. Criteria 1.2F: Examples of member practice involvement in decision-making. Base: All member practices (12) How effective, if at all, would you say the arrangements are for member participation and decision-making in Erewash CCG?

  25. Criteria 1.3A. Arrangements in place for CCG to involve and seek advice from healthcare professionals from secondary, community, mental health, learning disabilities and social care. Base: All other health professionals (5) Does Erewash CCG have arrangements in place to involve you in discussions about local healthcare services and seek your advice, or not?

  26. Criteria 1.3A. Arrangements in place for CCG to involve and seek advice from healthcare professionals from secondary, community, mental health, learning disabilities and social care. Base: All other health professionals (5) To what extent are you satisfied or dissatisfied with these arrangements?

  27. Criteria 1.3A. Arrangements in place for CCG to involve and seek advice from healthcare professionals from secondary, community, mental health, learning disabilities and social care. Base: All other health professionals (5) How well, if at all, do you think Erewash CCG understands what you/your group does?

  28. Criteria 1.3C: Arrangements in place between LA and CCG specifying how public health advice to CCGs will be delivered. Base: All upper tier/unitary local authorities (6) Do you have arrangements in place with Erewash CCG that specify how your local authority will deliver public health advice to the CCG, or not?

  29. Criteria 1.3C: Arrangements in place between LA and CCG specifying how public health advice to CCGs will be delivered. Base: All upper tier/unitary local authorities who have arrangements in place (3) How confident are you, if at all, that these arrangements will enable your local authority to deliver public health advice to Erewash CCG?

  30. Criteria 1.4.1A: CCG can demonstrate that it has taken steps to communicate its vision and priorities to partners, via its clinical leadership, through the local health and wellbeing board. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the clinical leadership of Erewash CCG...?* Base: All health and wellbeing board members (4) * Please note that the name of the CCG was also substituted into the question statements. The statements read ‘the CCG’ on this chart for presentation purposes. % agree

  31. Criteria 1.4.1A: CCG can demonstrate that it has taken steps to communicate its vision and priorities to partners, via its clinical leadership, through the local health and wellbeing board. Base: All health and wellbeing board members (4) How active, if at all, would you say the clinical leaders of Erewash CCG are as members of your health and wellbeing board?

  32. Criteria 1.4.1A: CCG can demonstrate that it has taken steps to communicate its vision and priorities to partners, via its clinical leadership, through the local health and wellbeing board. Base: All health and wellbeing board members (4) How well, if at all, would you say the clinical leaders of Erewash CCG have communicated its vision and priorities to the health and wellbeing board?

  33. Criteria 1.4.1A: CCG can demonstrate that it has taken steps to communicate its vision and priorities to partners, via its clinical leadership, through the local health and wellbeing board. Base: All health and wellbeing board members (4) How consistent, if at all, is the vision that Erewash CCG 's clinical leaders have communicated with the health and wellbeing board’s priorities?

  34. Criteria 1.4.1B. CCG can demonstrate it has taken steps to communicate its vision and priorities to stakeholders, patients and the public. Which of the following steps, if any, has Erewash CCG taken to communicate its vision and priorities to you? * Base: All stakeholders (44) * Results shown for all over 10%

  35. Criteria 1.4.1B. CCG can demonstrate it has taken steps to communicate its vision and priorities to stakeholders, patients and the public. Which of the following steps, if any, has Erewash CCG taken to communicate its vision and priorities to you?

  36. Criteria 1.4.1B. CCG can demonstrate it has taken steps to communicate its vision and priorities to stakeholders, patients and the public. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the steps that Erewash CCG has taken to communicate its vision and priorities to you? Base: All stakeholders (44)

  37. Criteria 1.4.2A Clinicians have taken steps to engage with LINks/local HealthWatch and patient groups. Which of the following steps, if any, have clinicians from Erewash CCG taken to communicate its plans and priorities to your organisation?* Base: All LINks/HealthWatch and patient groups (4) *Results shown for all over 10%

  38. Criteria 1.4.2A: Clinicians have taken steps to engage with LINks/local HealthWatch and patient groups. Base: All LINks/HealthWatch and patient groups (4) To what extent do you agree or disagree that clinicians from Erewash CCG have actively engaged with your organisation?

  39. Criteria 1.4.2A: Clinicians have taken steps to engage with LINks/local HealthWatch and patient groups. How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the steps taken by clinicians from Erewash CCG to engage with your organisation? Base: All LINks/HealthWatch and patient groups (4)

  40. Criteria 1.4.2B: Positive feedback from LINks/local HealthWatch and patient groups. To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the clinical leadership of Erewash CCG...?* Base: All LINks/HealthWatch and patient groups (4) * Please note that the name of the CCG was also substituted into the question statements. The statements read ‘the CCG’ on this chart for presentation purposes.

  41. Domain 1: Summary

  42. Domain 1: Summary

  43. Domain 1: Summary

  44. Domain 1: Summary

  45. Domain 1: Summary

  46. Domain 1: Summary

  47. Domain 1: Summary • Arrangements to ensure that the clinical perspective is represented within the CCG appear reasonably strong. • Most member practices feel they were involved in discussions about the proposed configuration, structure and governance arrangements of member practices. • All but one practice thinks the actual structures in place for decision-making are effective. • Clinical colleagues outside the CCG have mixed views on the arrangements in place for them to input to the CCG. • Health and wellbeing board members are largely ambivalent about the clinical leadership of the CCG, though they do think they are active members of the Board. • There are mixed views from the four LINks/ HealthWatch/ patient group representatives, including some dissatisfaction with the clinical leadership.

  48. Domain 2: Meaningful engagement with patients, carers and their communities

  49. Criteria 2.1.2A: CCG has engaged local authority/ties in establishing its geographic area. Base: All upper tier/unitary local authorities (6) How involved were you, if at all, in discussions about the geographic area that Erewash CCG would cover? Upper tier/unitary local authority 0 people say there has been no change in the boundaries for the CCG from previous PCT boundaries

  50. Criteria 2.1.2A: CCG has engaged local authority/ties in establishing its geographic area. Base: All lower tier local authorities (2) How involved were you, if at all, in discussions about the geographic area that Erewash CCG would cover? Lower tier local authority 0 people say there has been no change in the boundaries for the CCG from previous PCT boundaries