Contact your Parish Council
Discussion topic |
Comments |
Achievements |
· Signposting · Better understanding of partnerships and different perspectives · A useful forum to share information, develop partnerships and focus on the determinants of health and wellbeing · The geography works quite well · The West Kent Integration Board matches the WHWBB with the exception of Swanley · (slowly) building relationships between commissioners · WKHWBB may have given credibility to work streams that districts/ borough were already working towards · Gained understanding of JSNA, HWBB agenda, each other · Establishing the relationship · Brought a focus on priority areas · Task and finish groups and development of strategies · Closer working with the LA – sharing office etc · Communication improved · Plans now more reflective of partnerships · Clinical microsystems (quality improvement in primary care) more joined up · Self-care group – effective · Helicopter view informing delivery · Maidstone – housing team now attend delayed discharge meetings · Shared understanding of challenges · Improved strategic relationships · Whole system view · Comprehensive presentations · Spring board to delivery in other form e.g. planning, strategic estates, mapping tools
|
Challenges |
· Practical progress slow · Lack of awareness of the ‘positives’ outcomes that the Board has initiated · STP experience has led to a set of views that contribution of the districts and borough NOT valued and that they do not have a role to play · Successes don’t always come back to Board · Relationship with Kent HWBB? Formal sub committee · Lack of guidance · Inconsistency between HWBB · Will partners cede authority to the Board? · Concerns about economies of scale and accountability and performance management · Is the future of LHWBBS as commissioning organisations? Particularly in light of the WKCCG likely to be incorporated into a Kent CCG · Membership – are the right people there? Should providers be represented? · Willingness to co commission · Disconnect between what people would like and expect and what they’re prepared to do · Focus is too wide – changing behaviours or changing environment · Austerity leads to risk aversion in sovereign organisations – is the WKHWBB the right vehicle to reduce perceived risk · Geography? · Board members – struggle to understand what is the difference that participation makes · Not enough feedback about any successes · Shift thinking about the opportunities that the devolution deal can help deliver · Frustrations about the fact that the devolution deal has not been a central focus of the Boards deliberation · Lack of engagement from social care – should be involved but where are they? · WKHWBB ambitions to tackle the sorts of issues we are trying to deliver – can’t be resolved without KCC social care · The board needs to challenge other members – all need to be accountable · Board members need to be prepared to challenge their own organisations and existing thinking about current provision of services · Need to challenge commissioning culture · Can ‘trusted partners’ be considered to provide services? · Are existing commissioning cycles a barrier to innovation (health and social care) · Misguided objectives and complexity · Need for energy, passion, higher level champions · Issue of power – can develop strategy but capacity to influence delivery? · How can we be enablers? · How can we hold each other to account? · Should we be asking for clearer sign up? · Are individuals as committed as they should be? · Does it need to be all about delivery? · Do we follow the evidence? · Are we good enough as prioritisation? · What happens between meetings? · Who’s responsible for taking it forward? · Lack of funds · Clusters – delivery points? · Districts – working differently |
Future roles and responsibilities |
· Influence the STP and its delivery · Needs to avoid duplication and needs to add value · Help each of the respective organisations understand respective levels of clustering · WHWBB should focus on identifying needs and how to address them at a strategic level · Capturing the overview and the work of the other boards and plans · Having boards own basket of indicators for West Kent and a way to measure/ share them · Be a forum for sharing best practice and innovation · Scan the horizon for the future challenges and start the conversations – how will this affect us jointly and separately · Be a sounding board on ideas and challenges · Do we want to be a delivery group? · Responsibility and power should be agreed by the Kent Board · Necessary focus on wellbeing · Mechanisms for localism and sharing – inc teams, IT, premises · Opportunities of clustering · ‘big enough to cope, small enough to care’ · Feedback · Design and implementation of local care arrangements · Social prescribing · One public estate · Influence cluster leads to influence self-care agenda · Work force planning · IT, digital connectivity · Do we need to exist? In this form? · Adult social care – join up is happening on the ground but not at a strategic level. · This makes no sense to the man in the street – do we need an engagement plan? To work with the voluntary sector? Use networks more? Hold listening events? · STP view of prevention is medicalised – needs to look at root causes. · Support system permissions – risk averse behaviours, we need to get culture change and support · Potential of Right Care methodology · Co commissioning of public health – needs to be embedded · Kent and Medway – STP join p? HWB Join up? |
Short term priorities |
· Given the organisational flux, focus on a deliverable plan which can be delivered over the next 6-12 months. · Tighten up the T&F groups – objective is inequalities, need milestones, report back regularly · Pick one priority – e.g. MECC, obesity, alcohol · Look at critical issues – obesity, alcohol etc review what has been done · Task and finish – what has followed from that work? · Look at engagement of social care · Sign up to a shared priority? · Be a partnership rather than a board? · Hold meetings in the same, accessible place · Influence the local plan · Consider the geography? · Hear about the local delivery of the STP (local element) · Use WKHWBB to unblock issues e.g. identifying outcomes, what can we do to help · Continue communication and improve signposting · What other representatives/ links would enhance the WKHWBB? – Community Safety Partnerships? Local Children’s Partnerships? · What are our respective agencies challenges? How do we help each other? · Role of interpretation and translation · Horizon scanning – what are the big things coming? · Task and finish groups don’t finish so short term need to deliver at least one measurable output · Need to decide between focus on internal understanding and things that directly affect residents · Develop a single view of the world · Focus on specific geographies with defined measures of performance, clear responsibilities of each org. · Board needs to demonstrate it is competent. · What does a reboot mean? For organisations and for residents in the context of the changing landscape · The local board is not mini KHWBB – should it be a delivery arm of KHWBB? · STP – making sure we all understand the strategy and oversight of the local delivery |
Longer term evolution |
· Difficult to predict given various ‘clustering’ · We have to be flexible · Ensure we keep a handle on the local/delivery · Speak to local people – are we meeting their needs? · Bring together prevention and primary acre |
Workshop Feedback
Question |
1 - disagree |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 - agree |
The workshop objectives were clearly communicated |
|
|
x1 |
x1 |
X5 |
The content of the workshop supported the objectives |
|
|
|
X4 |
X3 |
The break out sessions worked well |
|
|
|
X3 |
X4 |
The workshop objectives were met |
|
|
|
X4 |
X3 |
Comments:
What would you have liked more time on?
· May have been good to rotate
· Cluster groups
· Clearer definition of health inequalities and how they can be impacted
What would you suggest to improve the workshop?
· Attendance from social care
· It was excellent – slides difficult to see though.
Additional comments
· Really useful thank you
· Helpful and interesting, thanks
· Balance of the topics was broadly right, my only comment is that we would clearly have benefitted from scene setting/ shared understanding of the changing landscape at the start
· I thought it was a good experience. We all had some really good ideas – the challenge now is to capture all of those ideas and be sure to implement them in a structured and disciplined way. Really good session, good facilitation