Scottish Health Technologies Group: enhancing patient engagement

Author(s):  
James Angus Stewart ◽  
Edward Clifton ◽  
Karen Macpherson ◽  
Nikolina Angelova ◽  
Graeme Morrison

Abstract Objectives The Scottish Health Technologies Group (SHTG) provides evidence support and advice to the National Health Service in Scotland on the use of new and existing health technologies, which, although not medicines, are likely to have significant implications for people's care. The purpose of this paper is to highlight the developments that have taken place in the SHTG's patient involvement processes in the years 2017 to 2019, focusing primarily on specific engagement with patient organizations and considering how the new approaches have been received by stakeholders. Methods Feedback from patient organizations that participated in the SHTG submission process, alongside SHTG committee members’ views on patient organizations contributions, was gathered primarily via online questionnaires. The number of times that patient organizations were invited and accepted the opportunity to peer-review SHTG advice statements prior to and after the employment of a Public Involvement Advisor (PIA) was analyzed. Results Completed questionnaires (n = 4) from three case study examples showed high patient organization satisfaction with their experience of the SHTG process. The feedback from SHTG committee members that was gathered indicated that patient organization participation was generally well received. The number of peer reviews from patient organizations for SHTG advice statements in 2018–2019 doubled to 86 percent of the total advice statements (n = 22), compared with 43 percent (n = 14) in 2016–2017. Conclusions Significant progress has been made toward improving the SHTG's patient involvement processes. A dedicated PIA post within the SHTG has allowed for a more tailored support to patient organizations and has encouraged their increased participation in SHTG processes.

1998 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 148-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Buchan

This paper, based on research commissioned by the Royal College of Nursing (Buchan, 1995), reports on the changing working patterns and flexibility in the employment of nursing staff in the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK. It reviews relevant literature, examines official data and draws information from 12 case study NHS trusts. Flexibility is invariably portrayed as a good thing, and as a means to a positive end, yet is rarely defined in detail, if at all. The aim of this paper is to consider flexibility not as a slogan or panacea, but in terms of the rationales for, and likely effects of, changing patterns of nursing work. It examines the reasons why NHS employers have been attempting to increase the flexibility of their nursing workforce.


Author(s):  
Myriam Lugon

AbstractAlthough Clinical Governance now has a strong structural base in the National Health Service (NHS), its actual application in terms of service delivery is more inconsistent. Cross-agency and boundary working are still underdeveloped and true patient involvement remains the province of a minority of enthusiasts. Despite this, there have been some significant moves forward, in that quality is now intrinsically linked to service delivery, and managers and clinicians are more explicitly accountable for the care they provide. This article examines the introduction of Clinical Governance to the NHS and discusses what practical applications have been made. Case studies drawn from those who are working at the frontline are used to illustrate the impact that Clinical Governance components have had on service delivery and patient experience.


1976 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudine McCreadie

ABSTRACTJohn Rawls' ATheory of Justicewas published in Britain in 1972. The summation of many years' work by Professor Rawls, it has stimulated widespread admiration and criticism. In this article Rawls' theory is summarized briefly together with some of the major criticisms that have been made of it. An attempt is then made to apply one of Rawls' principles of justice to the question of health services financing, using as a case study the recommendations of an advisory panel of the British Medical Association, which reported in 1970. These recommendations involved extending the private sector in medical care, on the argument that the flow of resources to the National Health Service would increase and, despite possible greater inequalities, result in an improvement in the level of care for all. Judged by the Rawlsian principle, these recommendations are not found likely to represent a just solution to the question of health service financing.


Personal and public involvement in healthcare provision has become an essential part of the governance framework of the National Health Service (NHS) today. Patient safety, quality, and responsiveness of care are the main priorities of national healthcare providers. Yet in practice, there are significant limitations to the introduction of a true patient- or person-centred approach, which will be described in this chapter. Two case studies have been included to illustrate the challenges to implementing a true person-centred approach in the NHS. The first relates to the Mid-Staffordshire Hospital Trust where hundreds of patients died as a result of sub-standard levels of care. The second focuses on a family's struggle to access a joined-up package of care for a Parkinson's disease sufferer in a primary care setting.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document