Are primary care groups and trusts consulting local communities?

Corresponding Author

Alison Alborz

BA PhD

National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

CorrespondenceAlison Alborz Research Fellow National Primary Care Research and Development Centre University of Manchester Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL UK E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author

David Wilkin,

David Wilkin

BSc MSc PhD

National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Search for more papers by this author

Keri Smith,

Keri Smith

BSc MSc

National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Search for more papers by this author

Alison Alborz,

Corresponding Author

Alison Alborz

BA PhD

National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

David Wilkin,

David Wilkin

BSc MSc PhD

National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Search for more papers by this author

Keri Smith,

Keri Smith

BSc MSc

National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 29 January 2002

https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0966-0410.2001.00338.x

Citations: 19

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

Abstract

Primary care groups and trusts (PCG/Ts) in the English NHS were established in 1999 and have responsibility for providing and commissioning health-care for around 100 000 people. PCG/Ts are dominated by health professionals, but are responsible for representing the interests of the local community. This paper assesses how they have informed and consulted local communities and the perceived impact of this consultation on decision-making.

The paper uses evidence from the National Tracker Survey of PCG/Ts, a longitudinal survey of 72 (15%) of the PCG/Ts in England, using data from telephone interviews with chairs and chief officers, and postal questionnaires to lay board members and representatives of Community Health Councils (CHCs).

Eighty-one per cent of PCG/Ts had public involvement working groups. Methods of consulting the community included consulting CHCs (87%), holding public meetings (75%) and consulting local patient groups (67%). Only 31% of chairs felt they were effective at consulting. Ninety-two per cent of CHC representatives attended all board meetings. Most CHC representatives reported that there had been little or no consultation with the CHC in areas such as commissioning, service development or clinical governance. Only 14% of CHC representatives rated PCG/T consultation with the public as effective. Eighty-seven per cent said that local communities were largely unaware of the existence of PCG/Ts, and 70% commented on the weaknesses in PCG/T efforts at public consultation.

Public participation is being taken seriously by PCG/Ts, but most are struggling to develop effective ways of involving local communities. Efforts to involve the public may become little more than token gestures. The proposed abolition of CHCs may make it more difficult for PCG/Ts to obtain a lay perspective. Effective consultation requires the development of new methods and adequate resources, but a stronger lay voice in the governance structures of PCG/Ts is needed.

References

Brown I. (2000) Involving the public in general practice in an urban district: levels and type of activity and perceptions of obstacles. Health & Social Care in the Community. 8, 251–259.
10.1046/j.1365-2524.2000.00247.x
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Buckland S., Lupton C. & Moon G. (1994) An Evaluation of the Role and Impact of Community Health Councils (Report). Social Services Research & Information Unit, Portsmouth.
Google Scholar
Davis H. & Daly G. (1999) Extended viewpoint: achieving democratic potential in the NHS. Public Money and Management, July–September, 59–63.
Google Scholar
Department of Health (2001) Involving Patients and the Public in Healthcare: A Discussion Document. Department of Health, London.
Google Scholar
Harrison S., Ahmad W., Milewa T., Heywood P. & Tovey P. (2000) Public and Patient Involvement in Primary Care Groups. An interim report to the Department of Health NHS Executive London. Nuffield Institute for Health & Centre for Research in Primary Care, University of Leeds.
Google Scholar
Longley D. (1990) Diagnostic dilemmas: accountability in the National Health Service. Public Law, Winter, 527–552.
Google Scholar
McIver S. (1999) Public involvement in primary care: implications for primary care groups. NT Research 4, 245–256.
10.1177/136140969900400402
Google Scholar
Milewa T. & Harrison S. (2001) Group dynamics. Health Service Journal, 26 April, 32–33.
Google Scholar
NHS Executive (1996) Patient Partnership. Building a Collaborative Strategy. NHS Executive, Leeds.
Google Scholar
NHS Executive (1997) Primary Health Care Teams: Involving Patients. Examples of Good Practice. Department of Health, London.
Google Scholar
NHS Executive (1998) Developing Primary Care Groups. NHS Executive, Leeds.
Google Scholar
NHS Executive & NHS Confederation (1998) In the Public Interest: Developing a Strategy for Public Participation in the NHS. NHS Confederation, Birmingham.
Google Scholar
NHS Management Executive (1992) Local Voices. The Views of Local People in Purchasing for Health. NHSME, London.
Google Scholar
O’Keefe E. & Hogg C. (1999) Public participation and marginalized groups: the community development model. Health Expectations 2, 245–254.
10.1046/j.1369-6513.1999.00058.x
PubMed Google Scholar
Paine T. (1983) Survey of patient participation groups in the United Kingdom. British Medical Journal 286, 768–772.
10.1136/bmj.286.6367.768
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
Pickard S. (1998) Citizenship and consumerism in health care: a critique of citizens’ juries. Social Policy and Administration 32 (3), 226–245.
10.1111/1467-9515.00100
Web of Science® Google Scholar
Pickard S. & Smith K. (2001) A third way for lay involvement: what evidence so far? Health Expectations 4 (3), 170–179.
10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00131.x
PubMed Google Scholar
Pritchard P. (Ed.) (1981) Patient Participation in General Practice. Royal College of General Practitioners, London.
Google Scholar
Richardson A. & Bray C. (1987) Promoting Health Through Participation: Experience of Groups for Patient Participation in General Practice. Research Report no. 659. Policy Studies Institute, London.
Google Scholar
Secretary of State for Health (1997) The New NHS: Modern – Dependable. (Cm 3807). The Stationery Office, London.
Google Scholar
Secretary of State for Health (2000) The NHS Plan: a Plan for Investment, a Plan for Reform. Cm 4818-I. The Stationery Office, London.
Google Scholar
Shepherd M. (2001) Voice Recognition. Health Service Journal, 15 Feb, 32–33.
Google Scholar
Wilkin D., Gillam S. & Coleman A. (Eds) (2001) The National Tracker Survey of Primary Care Groups and Trusts 2000/2001: Modernising the NHS? National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Google Scholar
Wilkin D., Gillam S. & Leese B. (Eds) (2000) The National Tracker Survey of Primary Care Groups and Trusts: Progress and Challenges 1999/2000. National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Google Scholar
Wilkin D., Gillam S. & Smith K. (2001) Primary care groups: tackling organisational change in the New NHS. British Medical Journal 322, 1464–1467.
10.1136/bmj.322.7300.1464
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar

Citing Literature

All articles

Are primary care groups and trusts consulting local communities?

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Information

About Wiley Online Library

Help & Support

Opportunities

Connect with Wiley

Are primary care groups and trusts consulting local communities?

Abstract

References

Citing Literature

References

Related

Information