Please use the ‘contact us’ button to get in touch if you would like further information or help.
Contact Us|
You said |
We did |
You said (again) |
What difference did it make? |
|
Patients and residents wanted the refresh of the strategic outline case (SOC) for hospital redevelopment to be comprehensive and to re-evaluate options relating to a new build hospital on a new site (even though those options had been discounted by the SOC submitted in 2017).
To view the full engagement report here
|
We carried out a more detailed refresh than NHSE/I had asked us to.
The refresh full retested the original SOC by looking again at various options, including building a new main A&E hospital on a new site, which formed part of an initial longlist. We analysed these options based on factors such as affordability and deliverability.
We carried out an extensive programme of communications and engagement to inform the refresh. This explained the process we were following. |
As part of the public engagement patients shared their views. This told us: · Easy access to hospital facilities (including parking provision at Watford) remains important for residents. · Any hospital development must be able to meet future demands arising from new homes being built in west Herts. · Enthusiasm in some areas of west Herts (especially in Dacorum and in St Albans to a lesser extent) for a new centrally located hospital. In other areas there was broad support for development scheme proposed in 2017 SOC. · Agreement from all sides that current condition of Watford General Hospital site is unsatisfactory. |
· Having looked at and costed all options we concluded that redeveloping Watford as the main A&E hospital remained the only viable option within financial parameters. · The refreshed SOC put forward a proposal to prioritise investment at WGH as this would have greatest beneficial impact overall for patients. We are aiming to make Watford look and feel like a new hospital within available finances. · Improved visitor parking at WGH will be the first development to take place on the site. · HVCCG and West Herts Hospitals NHS Trust have committed to work with the local councils and local transport providers to explore whether improvements can be made to public and community transport access to our hospitals. · The plan for WGH leaves space to create new buildings in future years should population growth create additional demand. · We secured funding from the government based on the redevelopment plans we put forward in the SOC.
|
|
Some patient focussed information and communication is not written for a public audience and is not easy to understand. |
We developed our reader panel to review all patient focussed information to ensure it is fit for purpose:
|
|
All patient / public focussed information is reviewed by the reader panel to check for easy read, plain English and clear. This has included consultation material, patient letters, changes to service provider and medication. |
|
Example Information on over the counter medicines, shortages and stockpiling medication was shared with the reader panel to review |
· Change wording of community pharmacy which is not recognised by the public to local chemist · Change positioning of information to ensure key messages to increase impact · Increase font size for easier read and correction of typos and grammar
|
· Information amended according to feedback · Helping to ensure that any patient / public facing information is clear, non-ambiguous and easy to read |
|
|
Practices and their patient groups highlighted the need for additional funding to support their group activities |
Working with patients, Healthwatch Hertfordshire, lead GP, practice managers and our patient group network we have agreed an incentive scheme to encourage development of groups with a payment to support activities |
· Include patient group members in assessment process · Provide clarity on whether the funding has to be used for patient group activities · Provide guidance on how to develop patient groups |
· Incentive scheme amended in line with feedback |
|
Patients who have been involved in service redesign, procurements and other CCG activities have suggested lessons could be learnt from their experience of involvement |
We have set up a focus group in 2020 with patient representatives and staff to review how we recruit and support patient volunteers– to learn from your experience and make improvements where necessary.
|
D |
· |
|
Our PPI committee and local patient groups raised concern about lack of engagement with younger people as future users of the NHS |
We have worked with our primary care nursing team and West Herts College to develop a session for their health and social care students. This includes an introduction to the NHS, information on local services, getting the students to think about their experiences and what good communication looks like |
Feedback from the students following the sessions are here |
· Raised awareness with young people of local health services · Session structure revised in accordance with feedback |
|
Concern that provider services were not aware of what is expected from them in terms of patient participation when changes are proposed |
Working with colleagues, NHS England and our patient and public involvement committee information on to be added to new contracts for 2020 to provide guidance. |
Information to be added to 2020 shared with PPI committee for comment |
· Ensure early patient involvement and communication when any changes are being proposed |
|
Clear information on two week wait cancer referrals is needed to raise awareness of the importance of attending the appointment, an early diagnosis and treatment |
Working with the lead Macmillan nurse, patient information on initial referral by a GP on urgent two week wait pathway was drafted.
A focus group of public, experts by experience, carers and health professionals reviewed the information |
· Ideally leaflet should be printed in colour but equally clear if printed in black and white · Consider A5 booklet · Too much repetition · Use ‘gentle’ words with more consistent approach (questions/answers) · Change ‘prioritise’ to ‘very important’ · Title too long, too many capitals: delete ‘suspected cancer’ · Clarity that ‘other support’ can be accessed and useful within 2 week wait · Confirmed that ‘can I bring someone with me’ section is useful but could be shortened · Consider using FAQ approach to the information · Use ‘successful’ rather than ‘effective · Consider using symptoms / questions reminder box · Some disagreement re the use of the diagram – get rid of it or make bigger and put on A5 back page
|
· The leaflet was amended based on all the feedback and distributed to GP practices in West Herts to give to patients |
|
Following a brief introduction to GP group consultations patient group network members requested a more detailed session to include GPs, practice managers and patients |
On 18 July a co-creation event was included nearly 50 primary care clinicians, GP practice staff and patients from local patient participation groups to learn about group consultations and set a shared ambition for the benefits that could be realised by their introduction in 18 months’ time. In response to the question, “In 18 months’ time, when group consultations are up and running, what will be different for….”
|
Discussions at the meeting summarised a co-created ambition, incorporating the feedback themes and produced a narrative to underpin the change that needed to be put into place to support the introduction of GP group consultations.
More detailed notes of the discussions are here
|
Information on the group consultations was shared with GP practices and practice patient groups.
|
|
Dr Jon Landy, Consultant Gastroenterologist at West Herts Hospitals NHS Trust asked for comments on proposed research project into bowel cancer testing |
Information was sent widely through our patient networks and comments were invited on: 1. If patients supported the study, felt it was important and had potential to enhance patient experience 2. If there were aspects they felt should be changed so that it was better from a patient viewpoint 3. Suggestions to improve the patient information sheet (PIS) that would make information more accessible to patients |
Patients fed back to Dr Landy, with a number of suggestions based on the questions posed |
· The feedback suggested that the study was reasonable regarding patient experience and no changes were necessary to study procedures that were set out to minimise any discomfort or risk to participants · the protocol would not be shared with patients as it was considered too technical but the patient information sheet was useful · Descriptions and explanations of polyps and colonoscopy were added to the PIS To view more information here ·
|
