Speaking Up Project NHS Complaints resolution and no recurrence - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Speaking Up Project

NHS Complaints – resolution and no recurrence Alex Robinson – Project Manager

Presentation to Health Scrutiny Committee 1st August 2011

Background

National charity nearly 50 years old Concerned for many years ref. complaints

handling via national Helpline

Successful bid for funding from the Health

Foundation (charity) to run a 2 year project

Lead organisation – Patients Association

Key partners:

Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Pilgrim Projects National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcomes

and Death (NCEPOD)

Why NHS Complaints? Why Mid Staffs?

Inequitable relationship between Trust and

complainant

Trusts review their own performance – limited

external scrutiny

Shipman Review identified lack of uniform

standards and guidance for complaints investigation – 6 years on this weakness remains

At Mid Staffs there is a particular need to rebuild

trust and confidence with the local community

The Project Itself

4 specific work streams:

Expert Panel Reviews Complaints Support Service Digital Story Telling Complaints Survey

Expert Panel Reviews

Proposed methodology

Panel of experts will meet every quarter over the 2 years

to review a sample of complaints

Retrospective activity – NCEPOD methodology Selection criteria – all extremes + mixture of low,

medium and high cases

Panels will consist of clinicians [nurses and hospital

consultants], complaints managers from other

• rganisations, magistrates, community members

They will use guidance and a scorecard specifically

developed for this activity

They will allocate a score to each complaint reviewed.

They will look for trends

Expert Panel Reviews

Guidance and scorecard

Lots of documents on complaints handling but

very little detailed guidance

With the support of the judiciary and complaints

managers we have set about bridging that gap

Have drafted a document containing 12

standards, which will be made available to the Trust

Secured expert advice [Dame Janet Smith]

Standard 1: The investigation of the complaint is impartial and fair. Standard 2: Individuals assigned to play a part in a complaint investigation have the necessary competencies. Standard 3: The roles and responsibilities of the complaints handling team are clearly defined. Standard 4: The governance arrangements regarding complaint handling are robust. Standard 5: The Complainant has a single point of contact in the organisation and is placed at the centre of the process. Standard 6: Investigations are carried out in accordance with local procedures, national guidance and within any legal frameworks. Standard 7: The investigator reviews, organises and evaluates the investigative findings. Standard 8: The judgement reached by the decision maker is transparent, reasonable and based on the evidence available. Standard 9: The complaint documentation is accurate and complete. The investigation is formally recorded, the level of detail appropriate to the nature and seriousness of the complaint. Standard 10: Responding adequately to the complainant and those complained about. Standard 11: Learning lessons from complaints occurs throughout the Organisation. Standard 12: Recording, analysing and reporting complaints information throughout the organisation and to external audiences

HOW DOES THE PANEL

RATE THE ORGANISATION AGAINST EACH STANDARD?

Level 1 – Poor Practice Level 2 – Less than

Satisfactory

Level 3 – Satisfactory Level 4 - Good practice Please provide your

reasons for assigning this grade

OVERALL RATING AND ASSESSMENT

• Score of 4 – Good practice: a standard
• f complaints handling you would

expect from yourself and your institution

• Score of 3 – Room for improvement:

aspects of complaints handling that could have been better

• Score of 2 – Less than satisfactory:

several aspects of complaints handling that were below standard

• Score of 1 – Poor: several aspects of

complaints handling that were substantially below standard

• Please provide your reasons for

assigning this grade:

• If you have rated this case as a Level

1 are there any issues that you would like feeding back to the Chief Executive at the Trust with immediate effect?

Expert Panel Reviews

Progress to date

Recruitment finalised for Phase 1 From 200 registers of interest, 40 people

shortlisted and invited to a training day 2nd August

Dates for 2 year programme published First panel [pilot] due 21st / 22nd September 2011 Data protection issues discussed with Trust’s

Cauldicott Guardian

Complaints Support Service

Proposed methodology

Access to service same as that used for ICAS – patient

choice

Introduce trained ‘Patient Champions’ recruited from

• utside the Trust, but from the local community, to

support complainants

Service will offer clinical screening by senior nurse Prospective activity – Patient Champions will provide a

scored judgement on the Trust’s response / handling of the complaint using the aforementioned guidance and scorecard

Complaints Support Service

Progress to date

Recruited to the role of Patient Champion Team

Manager – senior nurse

2 volunteer Patient Champions recruited from

the local community

Looking to launch service 1st September 2011 Eligibility criteria being developed - discussions

underway with ICAS ref cross referrals

Starting small but with scope to expand capacity

if required

Branding and marketing very important

The options that were on the table

Complaint Support Service Patient Champion Service Complaints Review Service Speaking Up: The Patients'

Association Support Service

The Patients Association's

NHS Evaluation Support Service The decision:

is meaningful - it “does what it

says on the tin”

is a name that is acceptable to

the local community

evokes the idea of a strong

voice for patients

is not too wordy - something

that rolls off the tongue

What will the service offer?

We will:

• Ask clinical specialists to review your

medical records if your complaint is about care and treatment

Make sure your complaint has been properly

investigated

Tell you what we find and give a view on

whether the response from the hospital is reasonable

Digital Story Telling

Pilgrim Projects have been commissioned to run 3

workshops over the life of the project – 2 with patients / complainants and 1 with staff if possible.

Workshops will help complainants translate their

experiences into Patient Voices – Digital Stories

250 word story in their own voice supported by music

and images

They will be used as teaching resources for staff at the

Trust

Lunch Event 2nd September 2011 1st workshop scheduled for 8th – 10th November 2011

Digital Story Telling

“Jimmy’s story” [told from the viewpoint of

his sister, a nurse]

“Yeah, I’ll go” [told from the viewpoint of a

junior doctor]

Complaints survey

Every complainant will be asked to complete a

survey asking about the quality of the complaints process

Developed from scratch with Trust’s Complaints

Focus Group

Reviewed by the Picker Institute To date, have 7 other trusts interested in running

survey / establishing a benchmarking group

Piloted with 48 recently closed cases at the trust

Complaints survey

23 questions in total including:

Were you worried that the quality of your care [or that of a friend or

relative if you are complaining on their behalf] would be reduced if you complained?

Do you feel the response to your complaint explains how the Trust

will take appropriate action to prevent the same thing happening again?

Do you feel you have been told the truth in the response to your

complaint?

If your complaint involved the behaviour of an individual member

• f staff, were you given a clear explanation as to how the hospital

has dealt with this?

What do we want the project to achieve?

Equality Transparency Independence Organisational Learning

Challenges ahead

Getting buy in and support from the local

community, which is a key component of the project.

Getting buy in from staff at the Trust

against a backdrop of a Public Inquiry.

Developing professional working

relationships with the Trust whilst maintaining independence

Minimising duplication with similar projects

– Engaging Communities

Thank You Any Questions?