CCPS event – 13 June 2013– Summary of responses
Discussion group 1:Planning the Engagement Phase
- Who should be represented on the NCSProject Group
Responses/suggestions included;
Service user groups/advocacy
Provider reps - CCPS (surprise!)
Human Rights rep
Communications expert
Regulators – SSSC, NMC
PA employers
Age Scotland
Who carers?
MWC
Young Scot
SDSS
Consumer Focus groups
Commissioners
SFHA
COSLA
ADSW
Planning and fire
Alliance of associations of residential care out of school care network Scottish Care Hospice network
SCVO
FEEDBACK – this list shows the scope of the work and potential stakeholders. Our intention will be to contact some of these bodies to ensure diverse interest groups are fairly represented. In addition we intent to set up separate ‘reference/advisory’ groups including people identified in section below.
- Who should be include in the engagement process (specific suggestions so we can contact people/organisations)
SENSE Scotland
Deafblind Scotland
Same as you
Pharmacy, dentistry, health visitors
LDAS
People first
All inspected organisations
Princes Royal Carers Trust
Well performing provders getting 5’s and 6’s
Planning and commissioners
Family members and individuals accessing services
- Specific opportunities for engagement – AGMs, Newsletters, events or forums?
Newsletters
ADSW conference
Creative media
GP/Pharmacists
Big Blether
CELCIS conference
CCPS e-bulletins and AGM
Social media
SCCYP – school campaigns
Third force news/interfaces
Quality Scotland
News briefs
Major funders – big lottery, life changes trust
Feedback – thank you to those of who left email addresses and details. We will contact you directly.
CCPS event – 13 June 2013
Discussion group 2: National Care Standards – initial thoughts
What’s good about the current NCS ?
-Outcome based
-Addressed to service users not providers
-They exist and helped raise standards
-Raised expectations of users and staff
-Provide level of clarity
What needs to be changed ?
- Too vague
- Not consistent
- Categories reduce flexibility
- ‘care’ too risk averse
- Too compartmentalised/rigid
- How performance is measured – consistency of interpretation, experience of inspector, inspectors knowledge of service types.
- Where have NCS failed ? What does this tell us/
- Care at Home does not fit well
- Aspirational not minimum standards
- Need to point towards good practice
- Do the NCS indicators really relate to quality
Who uses the NCS ?
Finding that inspectors are using them less and less
- Service providers
Should regulation/CI use NCS to grade against ?
- Yes if services need to adhere to them they should be regulated against them
Should we have as many sets or can these be streamlined ?
- Another set for commissioning
- Core set of right-based principles and adaptations for different needs/settings
- Think about existing outcomes/indicators GIRFEC
Do we need NCS ?
-Not if not linked to inspection etc
-Hmmmm .. Quality Themes are useful – what about validating providers own QA
Any other comments/suggestions/thoughts?
- Make sure publication of consultation materials timely – to have alternative formats available such as Braille/BSL
- Need to clarify roles of regulator and commissioning authority on the other
- Balance standards (protection) quality(process, interaction) and outcomes
Feedback: Thank you for your comments and initial thoughts, these were very helpful.
Some of the issues that jump out include included -
- CI should look at validating providers own QA.
- why re create wheel – GIRFEC etc as frameworks
- Make sure we have necessary and releevent tools to allow for meaningful and real consultation with service users