West Dunbartonshire Community Health & Care Partnership (WDCHCP)
Community Engagement Review 2014 – Interim Findings (Nov 2014)
Introduction
1.1 The Public Bodies (Joint Working)(Scotland) Act 2014 introduces Health and Social
Care Partnerships (HSCP) across Scotland from 2015, and in doing so offers a range of
opportunities and challenges for local authority areas. Within West Dunbartonshire – and
as part of final preparation for the move from shadow board to full operational status in
April 2015 - existing arrangements across a variety of governance functions and
engagement arrangements are being considered and refreshed. The appropriate and
constructive engagement of service users, carers and the wider communities of West
Dunbartonshire is an important element of the partnership approach.
1.2 There are differing levels of engagement from the most basic of informing people on
issues to co-producing and empowering. The most appropriate level of engagement at
any one time is dependent on the community need or desire to be involved and the nature
of the issue. The existing community engagement landscape around health and social care
issues spans a range of opportunities of varying levels including:
 Local elected members.
 Patient Participation Groups.
 Public Partnership Forum.
 Strategy Groups and Working groups e.g. Carers Strategy Group.
 Scottish Health Council initiatives.
1.3 Since the introduction of Community Health Partnershipss, there has been a West
Dunbartonshire Public Partnership Forum (PPF) that has provided as key public
engagement forum. However, it has not been a static arrangement: both its ways of
working and its sphere of interests have been developed and revised over time. As part of
the establishment of WDCHCP in 2010/2011, WDCVS had been commissioned to
undertake an independent review of local community engagement arrangements so as to
identify what was important to sustain and what could usefully be refreshed. A key
proposal from that review was to amalgamate and streamline the separate community
engagement arrangements that had previously been in place for NHS health care services
and Council social care services. The review’s findings were broadly supported locally
and the recommendations that followed approved by the WDCHCP Committee. This
included changing the remit of the local PPF’s so that it encompassed both health and
social care. The Scottish Health Council recognised this as being a progressive
development that distinguished the West Dunbartonshire PPF from other PPF’s.
1.4 Through the lifetime of WDCHCP, the successful engagement of community
representatives has been a key factor. Membership of the PPF has remained relatively
stable over the last few years and has a high level of individual public participation. The
PPF’s terms of reference are set out within its Working Agreement, and works to a
coordinated calendar of quarterly meetings aligned to those of the full WDCHCP
committe. The chair of the PPF is a community representative voted “in” as per the terms
of the PPF’s Working Agreement.
1.5 As part of the approved transitional plan towards the new HSCP and as per its
commitment to the National Standards for Community Engagement, WDCHCP
commissioned WDCVS to undertake an independent and updated review of local
community engagement arrangements so as to (again) identify what is important to
sustain and what can usefully be refreshed in a manner that fulfils the expectations on the
new HSCP and the expectations of local community groups and residents.
1.6 Moving forward into the new HSCP structure, it is important that the goodwill and
positive engagements are maintained and built on. This review has been conducted from
the perspective of the citizen and considers the nature of current and future engagement
activity. In order to ensure the best value use of public resources (financial and human),
it is important that engagement activity is undertaken in a coordinated and strategic
manner, especially with regards to the locality planning expectations within the Act;
further encourages individuals belonging to “protected characteristics”1 groups (as per the
Equalities [Scotland] Act 2010) to fairly have their say over services, strategies and
commissioning; and meets the National Standards for Community Engagement.
1.7 To facilitate the review process, WDCVS undertook a survey spanning currently engaged
community representatives (sample size 50) and local community and third sector
organisations with a self-determined health and social care focus (sample size 135
organisations). It has also sought feedback directly from the West Dunbartonshire PPF.
1.8 This short report then sets out the interim findings of the review, and is being circulated
to those that have contributed to-date to provide an opportunity for them to comment on
the insights detailed and the headline options proposed.
1.9 The deadline for comments is Friday 30th January 2015. Comments can be sent in
directly to Engage Team, WDCVS, Arcadia Business Centre, Miller Lane,
Clydebank, G81 1UJ or by email to info@wdcvs.com
1.10 In addition a dedicated and in-depth consideration of the consultation findings will
form a key part of the annual West Dunbartonshire PPF Network Event in February 2015.
This session will provide a further opportunity for comments and feedback to be
expressed prior to the report of this Review being finalised and presented to the WD
CHCP Senior Management Team. Once the details of that event are confirmed, we will
ensure that they are circulated to everyone who has participated in the Review to-date.
1
Disability; Sex (gender); Gender reassignment; Pregnancy and maternity; Race; Religion or
belief; Sexual orientation; and Age.
2|Page
Survey Feedback
1.11 The survey was completed by 80 respondents, representing an almost equal span of
interest across the four categories – health and care focussed member organisations,
health and care service providers, generic groups with an advocacy/information giving
aspect to their work and individual patients/service users. Of the respondents identifying
themselves to be representing organisations, the largest number were health and
community care (35%), followed by older age (25%). Other interests represented
included disability, children and families, conditions specific health groups and ethnic
minority community interests. Responses were drawn from across the West
Dunbartonshire area. 40% of responses were received from residents/organisations within
the Dumbarton area, with 20% from Clydebank, Vale of Leven and with a West
Dunbartonshire perspective respectively. This fairly represented the spread within the
survey sample frame.
1.12 When asked, almost 35% of organisation representatives reported that they had not
been formally nominated/elected by their organisations but had become involved due to
individual levels of interest. Given the high percentage of respondents who considered
themselves to be representatives, it was interesting to note that when asked to consider the
nature of their interest, respondents identified cross-cutting issues across West
Dunbartonshire as their dominant focus. However, many did reflect that they were also
interested in locality specific issues and reflected on the potential usefulness of exploring
engagement more at this level.
1.13 All participants were invited to consider their current understanding of the local health
and social care landscape, with the majority (85%) of responses in the good and fair
categories. Across the 10% who felt their understanding to be poor, this was generally
considered to be due to the concentration of personal interest in a particular area of health
and social care activity. Only 40% considered themselves to have structured ongoing
engagement with the CHCP through either patients groups, interest groups or the PPF.
Most recorded their engagement as more episodic and issue specific. This was however
not considered to be a negative approach, with almost 60% of respondents becoming
involved through WDCHCP-originated publicity and invitation or through local public
meeting attendance.
1.14 Respondents were asked to consider what they found most and least useful in their
engagement activity to date. Key findings were that:


A clear majority of respondents highlighted the openness of the CHCP to engage at
community level and in particular the ease of access to key officers.
Around 30% felt that having the opportunity to engage with other service users and
groups added to the experience, although a small percentage did identify the
dominance of some voices at meetings as a challenge and barrier also.
3|Page

Around 15% of respondents found a regular structured meeting approach helpful, but
with some concerns on meeting schedules and long diverse agendas.
1.15 A number of respondents made reference to examples of positive engagement
including attendance of officers on a one-to-one basis with local organisations and a
range of consultation opportunities particularly around older people and disabilities.
When asked to consider the principal barriers to engagement, respondents identified a
range of challenges of varying levels of intensity and impact, including:






Meeting agendas overly full.
Meeting agendas targeted more at information sharing than dialogue.
Inconsistent feedback on issues raised and discussed.
Short time frames associated with consultations.
Information overload – lack of targeting of information and easy to read formats.
Issues around individual representativeness often leading to personal issues being
raised inappropriately.
1.16 Respondents were also asked to consider what the focus of future engagement would
be both in terms of regularity and breadth. In the case of both individual and
organisational engagement, respondents favoured a form of ‘regular’ engagement
although there was no determinant of what timescale this would require.
1.17 Given the variety of engagement imperatives among the sample, the survey also
sought to explore the range of engagement activities which respondents felt would be
most supported. Key findings included that:






Whilst public meeting and consultations events remain popular, there was a clear
request for an increase in targeted engagements at local level, whether at individual
group level or through facilitated network style approaches.
There was also demand for an increase in opportunities for collaborative initiatives
across beneficiary groupings.
Almost 40% of respondents considered publications and briefings to be an important
part of the engagement mix, but identified the need to keep the information targeted
and appropriate.
Overwhelmingly, 85% of respondents felt that members of the public participating in
community engagement with the HSCP should be drawn from both local
groups/organisation nominations and individuals with an interest.
A number of respondents raised concerns around ensuring the focus and
accountability of the individuals who were representing local groups/organisations,
both to eliminate the promotion of personal interest and to ensure equality of access
across all of the health and social care agenda.
There was strong support for a code of conduct in relation to those members of the
public participating in community engagement with the HSCP.
4|Page
Options
1.18 Arising from the survey, three potential engagement options were developed.
Building on some initial feedback from PPF members at the October 2014 meeting, a
fourth option has also been devised. The options are:
Option 1: Refresh the current PPF as an open public forum that serves as the primary
engagement grouping for the HSCP with its format of quarterly meetings.
Option 2: Replace the current PPF with an HSCP approach to engagement that utilises
the newly formed Community Planning Partnership engagement mechanism, i.e. the
Community Alliance.
Option 3: Replace the current PPF with two Locality Engagement Networks led by
representative bodies of delegates, nominated/elected annually from within the
community – one for the Clydebank locality, and the other for the Dumbarton/Alexandria
locality.
Option 4: Revise the current PPF arrangements, so that it operates as an engagement
network whose membership is led by representative bodies of delegates,
nominated/elected annually from within the Clydebank locality and from within the
Dumbarton/Alexandria locality. Locality Engagement Network meetings would alternate
with a West Dunbartonshire-wide open forum Public Engagement Network meeting, with
the elected chairs of each locality engagement network rotating the chairing of West
Dunbartonshire-wide meeting.
1.19 While there pros and cons to each option, in determining what arrangements make the
most sense locally for the HSCP to proceed with each option should be appraised/tested
against the following questions:
 How well does each option address the feedback generated by this review, including
addressing the volume and length of meetings and fostering community ownership?
 How well does each option support the emphasis on the HSCP to engage and plan at a
locality level?
 How well does each option provide scope to be inclusive and further encourage
individuals belonging “protected characteristics” (Equalities) groups to fairly have their
say over services, strategies and commissioning?
 How well does each option meet the National Standards for Community Engagement
(overleaf)?
5|Page
National Standards for Community Engagement:
INVOLVEMENT: identifies and involves the people and organisations who have an interest
in the focus of the engagement.
SUPPORT: identifies and overcomes any barriers to involvement.
PLANNING: gathers evidence of the needs and available resources and use this evidence to
agree the purpose, scope and timescale of the engagement and the actions to be taken.
METHODS: agree and use methods of engagement that are fit-for-purpose.
WORKING TOGETHER: agree and use clear procedures that enable the participants to work
with one another effectively and efficiently.
SHARING INFORMATION: ensures that necessary information is communicated between
the participants.
WORKING WITH OTHERS: work effectively with others with an interest in the
engagement.
IMPROVEMENT: develops actively the skills, knowledge and confidence of all the
participants.
FEEDBACK: feed back the results of the engagement to the wider community and agencies
affected.
MONITORING AND EVALUATION: monitors and evaluates whether the engagement
achieves its purposes and meets the national standards for community engagement.
6|Page