Jo Ellins: Priority setting is everyone’s business
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Jo Ellins: Priority setting is everyone’s business

on

  • 458 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
458
Views on SlideShare
313
Embed Views
145

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

3 Embeds 145

http://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk 143
http://nuffield.local 1
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 1

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Jo Ellins: Priority setting is everyone’s business Jo Ellins: Priority setting is everyone’s business Presentation Transcript

  • Health Services Management Centre and the Nuffield Trust
  • Jo Ellins
  • Which elements/aspects of priority setting: Do you currently involve patients and the public in? Could you involve patients and the public in? Might patients and public want to be involved in?
  • Strategic planningMonitoring and Patients Priority setting evaluation and the decisions public Implementation phase
  • 1. Instrumental benefits: better, fairer, more legitimate decisions2. Political benefits: fostering accountability, transparency, citizenship3. Educative benefits: promoting more realistic public expectations(Williams, Robinson & Dickinson, forthcoming)
  •  Willingness to participate in decision making varies  Key motivation is to ensure that services better meet people’s needs  More comfortable participating in system and programme level decisions, than those affecting individual patients  Little desire to share responsibility for decisions, especially as these increase in complexity  But do want to have a voice in the process and for decisions to be more open and transparentLitva and colleagues, 2002
  • Information Consultation ParticipationFlow of information One way One way Two way Agency public Agency public Agency publicPurpose Letting people Getting a snapshot Engaging in know and raising of patient and dialogue or awareness public views negotiationIndividual (patients)Collective (public)Adapted from Rowe and Frewer, 2005
  •  Can you map the framework onto the activities you have identified  What is their purpose?  Who are you involving/would you involve? Does the framework suggest any other points of involvement you hadn’t initially considered?
  • Information Consultation ParticipationFlow of information One way One way Two way Agency public Agency public Agency publicPurpose Letting people Getting a snapshot Engaging in know and raising of patient and dialogue or awareness public views negotiationIndividual (patients)Collective (public)How? Leaflets, websites, Surveys, focus Citizens juries, local media, groups, public deliberative polling, roadshows, meetings, discrete choice noticeboards, complaints, opinion exercises, Delphi newsletters polls methods
  • Information Consultation ParticipationFlow of information One way One way Two way Agency public Agency public Agency publicPurpose Letting people Getting a snapshot Engaging in Opportunities for know and raising of patient and dialogue or information, awareness public views negotiation reflection andIndividual (patients) deliberationCollective (public)How? Leaflets, websites, Surveys, focus Citizens juries, local media, groups, public deliberative polling, roadshows, meetings, discrete choice noticeboards, complaints, opinion exercises, Delphi newsletters polls methods
  • Information Consultation ParticipationFlow of information One way One way Two way Agency public Agency public Agency publicPurpose Letting people Informing Getting a snapshot Engaging in Opportunities for know and raising asof patient and preferences, well dialogue or information, awareness capturing them; views as public negotiation reflection and participants can, and deliberationIndividual (patients) often do, change their viewsCollective (public)How? Leaflets, websites, Surveys, focus Citizens juries, local media, groups, public deliberative polling, roadshows, meetings, discrete choice noticeboards, complaints, opinion exercises, Delphi newsletters polls methods
  • Information Consultation ParticipationFlow of information One way One way Two way Agency public Agency public Agency publicPurpose Letting people Informing Getting a snapshot Engaging in Opportunities for know and raising asof patient and preferences, well dialogue or information, awareness capturing them; views as public negotiation reflection and participants can, and deliberationIndividual (patients) often do, change their viewsCollective (public)How? More suitable for Leaflets, websites, Surveys, focus Citizens juries, decisions which are public local media, groups, deliberative polling, complex, contested roadshows, meetings, discrete choice and require trade- noticeboards, offs complaints, opinion exercises, Delphi newsletters polls methods
  •  Set out with a clear idea about what the public is being asked to do The ‘right’ method is the one that suits the aims, target group and circumstances Make use of local networks and expertise Have a clear rationale for inviting/selecting participants (and for exclusions) Clarity with participants about other inputs/influences in the decision-making process Communicate how decisions have been made and where public views have been considered
  • Can do Have the resources and Capacity building, training knowledge to participate and supportLike to Have a sense of Building visibility, trust, attachment that reinforces relationships participationEnabled to Provided with the Investing in infrastructures, opportunity for groups and networks participationAsked to Mobilised by official bodies Opportunities that are or voluntary groups appealing, engaging and appropriate; getting the ‘ask’ rightResponded to See evidence that their Feedback on how decisions views have been were made and views were considered consideredAdapted from Lowndes, Pratchett and Stoker, 2006
  •  Take one of the activities identified:  How would you involve patients and the public in this activity?  What factors would enhance (or reduce) the effectiveness of your approach?
  •  Litva, A and colleagues (2002) ‘The public is too subjective: public involvement at different levels of health care decision making’, Social Science and Medicine, 54: 1825-37. Lowndes V, Pratchett L and Stoker G (2006) ‘Diagnosing and remedying the failing of official participation schemes: The CLEAR framework’, Social Policy & Society, vol 5, 281–291 Rowe, G. and Frewer, L. (2005) ‘A typology of public engagement mechanisms’, Science, Technology and Human Values, vol 30, pp 251-290. Williams I, Robinson S and Dickinson H (forthcoming) Rationing in Health Care, Bristol: Policy Press