governing body (public) meeting - nhs bexley ccg · the survey period ran from 12 march 2014 until...

DATE: 31 July 2014

Title Results of 360° survey

Recommended action for the Governing Body

That the Governing Body: NOTE the response rate (page three), areas where the CCG received higher scores (pages 13 to 14), lower scores (pages 14 to 15) and the work plans to help improve relationships with stakeholders and results of the survey in the future (pages 15 to 18) as set out in the report attached.

Executive summary

NHS England commissioned Ipsos-Mori to undertake a stakeholder survey on behalf of all CCGs in March 2014 to feed into the assurance process and to help CCGs develop relationship with a number of stakeholders. Results were provided to CCGs in early May and this report outlines the score of all the questions in each of the domains. The report also provides a comparison to the south London and national average, as well as a comparison to the CCGs scores in 2012 where available. The CCG obtained the second highest response rate to the survey in London, and the seventeenth best nationally. Overall, the results for the CCG are positive, however, there are a number of areas where the CCG should seek to improve scores reflecting lower than the south London or national average. Results for overall engagement and relationships were positive, particularly when all stakeholders were asked if the CCG had engaged well over the past 12 months – 77% thought a great deal or fair amount – and how stakeholders rated their working relationship with the CCG – 75% thought very or fairly good.

Which objective does this paper support?

Patients: Improve the health and wellbeing of people in Bexley in partnership with our key stakeholders

People: Empower our staff to make NHS Bexley CCG the most successful CCG in (south) London

ENCLOSURE: O Agenda Item: 92/14

Governing Body (public) meeting

Pounds: Delivering on all of our statutory duties and become an effective, efficient and economical organisation

Process: Commission safe, sustainable and equitable services in line with the operating framework and which improves outcomes and patient experience

Organisational implications

Key risks (corporate and/or clinical)

Although there are no risks directly associated with this report, the CCG is at risk of not further improving relationships with its stakeholders unless it embeds a series of work plans and engagement activity. This could also have an impact on the results of future surveys.

Equality and diversity N/A

Patient impact

The results of the survey have highlighted a number of positive outcomes for patients e.g. engagement, communication and explaining plans. However, by embedding a series of work plans and engagement activity there is a greater likelihood of more people, patients and groups will be better informed.

Financial N/A

Legal issues N/A

NHS constitution N/A

Consultation (public, member or other) N/A

Audit (considered/approved by other committees/groups)

Communications plan N/A Author Lucy Huitson

Clinical lead Dr Howard Stoate

Executive sponsor Simon Evans-Evans

Date 31/07/14

1

NHS Bexley Clinical Commissioning Group’s 360º stakeholder survey report

Contents

Background ................................................................................................................ 2

Fieldwork .................................................................................................................... 3

Response rate ............................................................................................................ 3

Analysis and next steps .............................................................................................. 4

Overall engagement and listening to views ............................................................. 6

Domain one: are patients receiving clinically commissioned, high quality services?

................................................................................................................................ 6

Domain two: are patients and the public actively engaged and involved? .............. 7

Domain three: are the CCG plans delivering better outcomes for patients? ........... 7

Domain four: does the CCG have robust governance arrangements? ................... 8

Domain five: are the CCGs working in partnership with others? ............................. 9

Domain six: does the CCG have strong and robust leadership?............................. 9

Work underway to improve satisfaction of future surveys ........................................ 10

Additional work to improve satisfaction rates in future 360° surveys ........................ 12

Appendix one: Summary results .............................................................................. 12

Appendix two: CCG 360° stakeholder survey 2014 main report……………………...21

2

Background The previous CCG stakeholder survey was carried out as part of the authorisation process in 2012. NHS England commissioned Ipsos-Mori to undertake a stakeholder survey to provide feedback and assurance on all CCGs regarding engagement and working relationships with a range of stakeholders. The purpose of the survey was to:

1. Feed into the assurance process of CCGs with NHS England 2. Provide CCGs with useful information to help develop their relationships with

stakeholders. NHS England provided guidance on the stakeholder groups and CCGs provide names and contact details. NHS England Stakeholder Groups:

One person from each member practice

Up to five CCGs with whom the CCG collaborates

Up to two health and wellbeing board stakeholders

Up to five local authority stakeholders

Local Healthwatch

Up to three from other patient groups

Up to two stakeholders from main NHS providers – acute trust

Up to two stakeholders from main NHS providers – mental health

Up to two stakeholders from main NHS Providers – community trusts

Optional seven additional stakeholders NHS Bexley CCG Stakeholders included representatives of:

Each member practice

NHS Bromley, Greenwich, Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark CCGs

London Borough of Bexley

Bexley Health and Wellbeing Board

Bexley Council for Voluntary Services

Bexley Healthwatch

Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust

Dartford and Gravesham NHS Trust

Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust

Other specific individuals There was a core set of questions for all stakeholders as well as segmented questions for each group of stakeholders. The CCG also took the opportunity of providing five additional bespoke questions to be included in the survey. These were:

A. How would you rate the CCG on each of the following:

3

1. Leading the communications with stakeholders on the changes taking place at Queen Mary’s Hospital

2. Engaging patients and residents in the changes to local healthcare services

3. Engaging local people and clinicians to develop the CCGs priorities – also known as commissioning intentions – for the years ahead

4. Addressing concerns about the quality of local healthcare services provided by local NHS organisations

5. Collaborating with our partners to improve health and social care across the borough

It is expected that the survey will run on an annual basis.

Fieldwork

The survey period ran from 12 March 2014 until 8 April 2014. Ipsos-Mori distributed electronic links to the survey to all participants, once contact details had been received from the CCG. Reminder emails were sent twice to stakeholders by Ipsos-Mori with a final telephone reminder and the CCG included reminder updates in its fortnightly bulletin.

Response rate The CCG had the second highest overall response rate in London and the seventeenth highest nationally.

Stakeholder Group

Invited to take part in survey

Completed Survey

Response Rate

GP member practices

28 23 82.1%

Health and Wellbeing boards

2 2 100%

Local Healthwatch / patient groups

5 3 60%

NHS Providers 6 5 83.3%

Other CCGs 5 5 100%

Local Authority 5 5 100%

Wider stakeholders 6 5 83.3%

TOTAL 57 48 84.2%

This compares to the following overall response rates across south east London CCGs:

CCG Overall Response Rate

Lambeth 74.7%

Lewisham 60%

Bexley 84.2%

4

Bromley 53.5%

Greenwich 61.1%

Southwark 89.5%

Results were made available to CCGs on 9 May 2014 in the form of a summary report, showing the results which were asked of all stakeholders, including direction of travel comparisons, a main report and a copy of verbatim comments from stakeholders. This was reported verbally to the governing body on 29 May. The main report (appendix two), includes the results for all questions in the survey with results shown for each stakeholder group where relevant and structured across the six assurance domains. The main report also contains an initial section on overall engagement relating to questions not linked to specific domains. At the end of each section there is a table summarising the results with comparative data for those questions asked of all stakeholders. Some questions also include data to compare results to:

the combined national CCG average in 2014

the 2014 average across the local area team (i.e. the 12 south London CCGs)

our 2012 results Note that only some of the questions were the same as those asked in 2012, so comparisons cannot be made for every question. When reviewing the data it has to be borne in mind that the sample size is very low and for some answers are only from two or three people. Such small sample sizes can skew percentages. Both the percentage and actual numbers are shown below to add understanding.

Analysis and next steps Overall, the results for the CCG are positive, as they reflect improvement across domains and most questions since the first 2012 survey. In particular, the results reflect significantly improved relations with the local authority since 2012. This is could be attributed to a number of factors:

The development of an integrated commissioning team

Jointly commissioning services to benefit the health of local populations e.g. early intervention and prevention services, mental health recovery services

Launching and implementing the borough’s integrated care programme

Close partnership working to establish the integrated care collaborative to develop the better care fund

Developments in safeguarding e.g. the joint implementation of a multi-agency safeguarding hub

Collaborative work to develop Queen Marys Hospital

5

New leadership at the CCG and their commitment to on-going engagement – both informally, and formally, through health and wellbeing boards, overview scrutiny committees, safeguarding boards

The survey does identify areas to be addressed with NHS providers. However, these results, since the previous survey was undertaken in 2012, could be attributed to a period of significant change for providers such as the dissolution of the South London Healthcare NHS Trust, and the procurement of new services at the time of the survey. The survey represents a small proportion of the local people, patients and groups the CCG engages with, although the majority of feedback from Healthwatch and patients is positive and the CCG has advanced ways of engaging with the public, more work to progress on-going and future relationships needs to be progressed. Like the CCG, Healthwatch is a new organisation and both need to establish tools and processes to share learning, feedback and concerns to ultimately improve patients’ experience of local healthcare. Some areas of the report show that more needs to be done to engage, listen and to act on messages from member practices.

6

Overall engagement and listening to views

The CCG had particularly good results in the following areas:

There are a number of areas where the CCG has scored lower than it would have liked and lower than the south London or the national average

o The way in which the CCG engaged with stakeholders in the past 12 months

o The working relationship the CCG has with stakeholders

o The way in which the CCG engaged with stakeholders in the past 12 months, in particular with members practices and NHS providers

o How the CCG listened to stakeholders, in particular with member practices and NHS providers

o How the CCG acted on stakeholders’ suggestions, in particular with member practices and NHS providers

o How the CCG improved its relationships with member practices

Domain one: are patients receiving clinically commissioned, high quality services?


There are a number of areas where the CCG has scored lower than it would have liked and lower than the south London or the national average:

o The frequency of which the CCG engages with member practices

o Clinical involvement

o Improving participation and decision-making in the CCG o How the CCG involves member practices in decision making

processes o Building confidence with member practices to sustain two-

way accountability o Ensuring more clinicians are involved in discussions about

NHS providers

7

Domain two: are patients and the public actively engaged and involved?



o The confidence stakeholders have in the way NHS Bexley CCG commissions high-quality services for the local population

o The understanding by all stakeholders of the decisions the CCG makes when commissioning services

o The way in which the CCG effectively communications its commissioning decisions with all stakeholders

o The steps taken by the CCG to engage with patients and the public

o The extent the CCG has engaged with seldom heard groups o The way in which patients and the public are able to

understand how decisions have been made if they want to o The opportunities for patients and the public to input into the

CCGs commissioning decisions o The way in which Healthwatch and patient groups feel the

CCG listens to and acts on concerns, complaints or issues raised

o Ensuring member practices, NHS providers and wider stakeholders are more aware of who the CCG engages with to commission services

o Ensuring member practices and NHS providers are confident in the CCGs ability to deliver continuous quality improvements in the available resources

Domain three: are the CCG plans delivering better outcomes for patients?



o Stakeholders’ knowledge of the CCGs plans and priorities o The effectiveness of the way the CCG communicates about

its plans and priorities to stakeholders – in particular member practices

o Ensuring member practices and NHS providers have the opportunity to influence the CCGs plan and priorities

o Ensuring member practices and NHS providers feel their comments about the CCGs plan and priorities are being taken

8

o The understanding by member practices of financial implications facing the CCG

o The understanding by member practices regarding the implications of the CCGs plans for service improvement

o The understanding by member practices of referral and activity implications on the CCGs plans

o The understanding by member practices of what is required of practices in order to implement the CCGs plans

o The recognition from NHS providers to work together and develop long-term strategies and plans

on board o Ensuring member practices and NHS providers feel the

CCGs plan and priorities are the right ones

Domain four: does the CCG have robust governance arrangements?



o The confidence in the CCG to effectively monitor quality of the services it commissions

o The ability to raise concerns concerning the quality of local services with the CCG

o The confidence in the CCG to act on feedback it receives about the quality of services

o Agreement from most NHS providers that the level of monitoring the CCG undertakes is sufficient

o Ensuring the CCGs responses to the issues around the quality of services are proportionate and fair

9

Domain five: are the CCGs working in partnership with others?

The CCG had particularly good results in the following areas


o The CCGs contribution through local groups e.g. urgent care working groups

o The working relationship with local authority to develop and deliver shared plans and integrated commissioning

o The CCGs active role as a member of the health and wellbeing board, developing the joint strategic needs assessment and delivering on elements of the health and wellbeing strategy

o The CCGs ability to engage the health and wellbeing board in the development of its commissioning plans

o The CCGs ability to supply necessary information to health and wellbeing board stakeholders when necessary

o Ensuring the CCG is as effective as it can be with the adult safeguarding board

Domain six: does the CCG have strong and robust leadership?



o Confidence from stakeholders of the skills of CCG leaders and their clear and visible leadership

o Confidence from stakeholders of the clear and visible leadership of clinicians at the CCG

o Ensuring member practices and NHS providers have confidence in the leadership of the CCG to deliver its plans and priorities and continued quality improvements

o Ensuring member practices and NHS providers have confidence in the leadership of the CCG to deliver on its plans, priorities and improved outcomes for patients

o Ensuring member practices and NHS providers feel clinical leaders are delivering continued quality improvements

10

Work underway to improve satisfaction of future surveys The following on-going work, much of which is detailed in the CCG’s organisational development plan, will seek to address some of the concerns listed above and hopefully lead to improved satisfaction in future surveys. This includes:

1. The CCG’s second independent telephone survey to learn more about the views and opinions of all GPs in the borough – this will help to address and establish how the CCG can ensure members feel engaged, listened to and their actions addressed.

2. The clinical leads programme is currently being expanded. The programme includes a series of training for all 30 of its leads, covering quality improvements. Recently, a local GP was appointed as the principal clinical lead to support and help develop the clinical leadership programme. This will include a series of soft reports, engagement and communication to ensure all GPs are aware of the work their fellow clinical colleagues are undertaking. It will also promote the profile of the clinical leads work in the public domain. As more clinical leads engage with the CCG, especially those leading on service redesign projects; they will have more contact with NHS providers, increasing interactions and two-way communication between both organisations.

3. Quarterly GP engagement events are being expanded by the CCG to

ensure more stakeholders can be involved and engaged in the sessions. Since the survey was completed, two engagement sessions have featured information stalls and half-hour presentations from NHS England and Lewisham and Greenwich NHS Trust to discuss the care.data programme and electronic patient records respectively. The CCG is also working with all GPs to ensure members have greater influence the event agendas.

4. All member practices in Bexley are also being supported to help develop

future models of working to meet the evolving needs of patients. The CCG hosted an event earlier this month (July 2014), attended by a clinician and manager from each practice, to hear how neighbouring boroughs are creating and implementing GP ‘networks’ – where practices pool resources and expertise to improve care. The CCG has committed to support localities through this journey, where possible. From this work stream it is also hoped that improvements will be made in primary care.

5. During the undertaking of the survey, the CCG’s governing body approved a

primary care strategy, which is currently being implemented. The work deriving from the strategy aims to support practices and NHS England to improve the overall quality of primary care.

6. Earlier this month (July 2014), the CCG introduced a web-based quality alert system pilot with five GP practices. The software enables practices to log a quality issue in the system and share it with the CCG’s quality team so that it

11

can be addressed with the service provider. The aim of the system is to improve communication between GPs and the CCG concerning quality issues. The CCG will be working alongside practices to obtain feedback and if successful, the software will be introduced at practices across the borough.

7. A bi-annual review will be developed with the patient council and members to demonstrate the CCG’s progress against its commissioning plans. The review – focusing on April to September and October to March – will include a series of case studies and examples to show:

o how members have been engaged and their comments acted on o where members of the public and patients have fed back comments or

compliments and how these have been acted on or listened to o how programmes of work are being delivered through partnership

working with providers, patients and the local authority o how and where decisions were made in the last six months and by

whom o how clinical leaders and members have impacted on the progress of

the commissioning plan The bi-annual review will be made available in an easy-to-read format and shared with community groups, forums, patient networks, clinicians, providers and wider stakeholders to demonstrate how the CCG is delivering against its plans and priorities.

8. Since the survey was undertaken, the Primary Care Advisory Group

(PCAG) has met and approved the constitution, which had been reviewed by all members. The changes in the constitution included the CCG’s updated values and updated governing body appointment procedures including the voting system and the role of the clinical-vice chair. The changes were approved and adopted by PCAG and the new constitution is available from the CCG’s public website.

9. Work is underway to ensure the CCG is an effective member of the adult safeguarding board. Following the completion of the survey, the CCG has and continues to ensure there is representation from the CCG at all adult safeguarding board meetings. A multi-agency forum has also been established to share learning between organisations and has ensured other stakeholders recognise the CCG as a valued adult safeguarding representative.

10. Work is underway to develop a training and development programme for CCG

senior leads including coaching and education, to help understand the local landscape (potentially including visits to or shadowing providers).

11. Work is also underway to develop a knowledge-training programme for the

governing body. The programme is likely to include topics such as risk appetite, safeguarding, finance and assurance.

12. Building relationships with NHS providers continues to expand following

dissolution of South London Healthcare NHS Trust, resulting in the CCG forming new networks and rapports with NHS providers. As an example, an

12

urgent care network has been established between Bexley, Lewisham and Greenwich to improve governance structures and to better monitor winter pressures activity and performance.

Additional work to improve satisfaction rates in future 360° surveys A number of areas will require additional work or engagement to hopefully improve positive response rates in the future. These include:

1. A brainstorming session with members at a primary care advisory group meeting to consider some of the issues raised by the survey and discuss how these issues could be improved or resolved.

2. Using other forums to address some of the concerns raised by stakeholders and how these could be resolved, for example, informal clinical lead sessions and/or governing body think tanks, to obtain feedback and identify what other mechanisms and tools the CCG can implement to improve some understandings by stakeholders.

3. Enhancing internal and external processes to ensure members and wider stakeholders are more confident and aware of how decisions are made and the engagement that has taken place beforehand. For example, ensuring the decision to procure, through to the decision to award is even more transparent.

4. Expanding engagement with stakeholders to and establishing a series of tools to ensure stakeholders feel their suggestions are being listened to and acted on.

5. Implementing performance tools to demonstrate how the CCG’s plans are delivering quality improvements.

6. Building on existing plans to ensure the CCG effectively monitors the quality of services the CCG commissions and share these with members.

Appendix one: Summary results

Overall engagement and relationships Overall 77% (37) stakeholders felt they have been engaged by the CCG a great deal or a fair amount over the last 12 months. This represents a 20% improvement on the 2012 results where 64% of stakeholders gave this rating. The figure for member practices was slightly lower at 70% (16). Seven member practices felt that they had not been engaged very much or not at all as well as one patient/local Healthwatch representative, one CCG, one local authority representative and one representative from the wider stakeholder list. London CCG’s average for 2014 is 83% (450) and the national average is 83% (7451).

13

“I’ve been invited to all meeting and they’ve been very open. Any questions I’ve needed to ask were dealt with – there was no fobbing off. I think the people running

the CCG and the staff have been very helpful and open, and they’re there.” 63% (30) of stakeholders reported that they were very or fairly satisfied with the way in which the CCG has engaged with them and this compares favourably to 53% (23) stakeholders in 2012, a 19% increase, and is slightly lower that the south London average of 76% (401) and the national average of 74% (6511). However, only 48% (11) of member practices were very or fairly satisfied and 17% (4) are very or fairly dissatisfied with the way in which the CCG has engaged with them. 52% (25) of all stakeholders strongly or tended to agree that the CCG listened to their views which is slightly lower than the CCG’s result in 2012 where 55% (23) agreed. This score is also lower than the national average of 66% (5921) and the south London average of 62% (334). 30% (7) of member practices tended to or strongly agree that the CCG listens to their views and 39% (9) strongly or tended to disagree. “Bexley CCG colleagues often have strong views on issues, but are very receptive to hearing different perspectives and happy to develop their thinking in response. They

are very straightforward and open, so good.” 42% (20) stakeholders strongly or tend to agree that the CCG had acted on their suggestions, compared to 36% (15) in 2012 – an increase of 17%. This score is lower than the south London average of 53% (284) and the national average of 51% (4580). 22% (5) of member practices strongly or tended to agree as did 80% (4) of other CCGs and 80% (4) of local authority representatives. 30% (7) of member practices strongly or tended to disagree. 75% (36) of all respondents rated their working relationship with the CCG as very or fairly good, compared to 57% (24) in 2012, representing a 32% increase. 70% (16) of member practices rated their working relationship as very or fairly good and 17% (4) rate it as very or fairly poor.

“Bexley CCG and the council work in partnership, engagement is good and relationships are built on growing mutual trust and understanding. This does not

mean there is no challenge or disagreement but that we can usually reach agreement because we have common goals and respect.”

54% (25) of stakeholders agreed that over the last 12 months their working relationship with the CCG has improved which is the same as the south London average of 54% (287) and a little higher that the national average of 49% (4377). Only 27% (6) member practices thought their working relationship had got much or a little better and 9% (2 practices) felt it had got much or a little worse.

Domain one: Are patients receiving clinically commissioned, high quality services?

14

43% (10) of member practices said the arrangements for member participation and decision-making are very or fairly effective, compared to 63% (12) in 2012. 48% (11) of member practices feel that the arrangements for member participation and decision-making are not very or not at all effective. 78% (18) of member practices felt not very or not at all involved in the CCG’s decision making process, compared to 21% (5) practices who felt very or fairly involved. 35% (8) of member practices felt very or fairly confident in two way accountability between the CCG and member practices, compared to 47% (27) in 2012. 48% (11) practices were not very or not at all confident. 39% (9) of member practices stated that they had the opportunity for direct discussions with the CCG’s leaders on a quarterly basis, 35% (8) monthly. 9% (2) did not know. 56% (13) of member practices strongly or tended to agree that representatives from member practices are able to take a leadership role in the CCG and 5% (2) tend to disagree. 20% (1) of NHS provider trusts who responded to the survey agreed that quality is a key focus of the CCG’s discussions with them. 60% (3) stated that clinicians from the CCG are very or fairly involved in discussions about quality and 40% (2) stated that clinicians are very or fairly involved in discussions about service redesign.

Domain two: Are patients and the public actively engaged and involved? 53% (25) of all respondents strongly or tended to agree that the CCG involves and engages with the right individuals and organisations when making commissioning decisions, compared to a south London average of 63% (342) and a national average of 63% (5691). 48% (11) of members practices strongly or tended to agree with this statement and 30% (7) strongly or tended to disagree. 67% (2) of the Healthwatch/patient groups strongly or tended to agree with the statement as did 100% (5) of local authority respondents and 60% (3) of other CCGs. 58% (28) of all respondents strongly or tended to agree that they have confidence in the CCG to commission high quality services. 52% (12) of member practices strongly or tended to agree with this statement and 26% (6) strongly or tended to disagree.

“They [the CCG] have made an effort to understand the quality of our services. They

have been open on suggestions on how we report to them on the quality of our services. Initially they have not understood our services fully but this has improved

during the last financial year.” 63% (30) of all stakeholders strongly or tended to agree that they understood the reasons for the decisions that the CCG makes when commissioning services, compared to a south London average of 67% (364) and a national average of 64% (5745). 52% (12) of member practices strongly or tended to agree with this statement and 26% (6) strongly or tended to disagree.

15

59% (28) of stakeholders strongly or tended to agree that the CCG effectively communicates its commissioning decisions with them which is slower than the south London average of 63% (339) and the same as the national average of 59% (5303). 52% (12) of member practices strongly or tended to agree with this statement and 26% (6) strongly or tended to disagree. “We have certain members who are involved in the CCG who are paid members of staff who engage with us. What’s missing is knowing the process that follows the

engagement, knowing how the process is fed back to the board and what the overall thinking is.”

58% (24) of all stakeholders strongly or tended to agree that the CCG’s plans will deliver continuous improvement in quality within the available resources, which is lower than the south London average of 62% (336) and the same national average of 58% (5249). 39% (9) of member practices strongly or tended to agree with this statement and 22% (5) strongly or tended to disagree. 50% (1) health and wellbeing board respondent, 67% (2) Healthwatch/patient groups and 100% (5) of local authority representatives strongly or tended to agree with this statement. 67% (3) of Healthwatch/patient group respondents were very or fairly satisfied with the steps taken by the CCG to engage with patients and the public and one respondent in this group is fairly dissatisfied. 33% (1) felt the CCG had engaged with seldom heard groups a great deal, 33% (1) a fair amount and 33% (1) just a little. “The Bexley CCG attend our meetings about twice a year and the Bexley pensioners forum and give our members updates on Queen Mary’s Hospital and other changes

in medical within Bexley which is received with thanks by all of our members.” 67% (2) of Healthwatch/patient group respondents strongly or tended to agree that the CCGs commissioning decisions were open and transparent and the public are able to understand how decisions are made and one strongly or tended to disagree. 67% of this group of respondents strongly or tended to agree that patients and the public had the opportunity to input into the CCGs commissioning decisions and one disagreed. 100% of respondents in this group strongly or tended to agree that the CCG listens to and acts on any concerns, complaints or issues that are raised.

Domain three: Are CCG plans delivering better outcomes for patients? 80% (38) of all respondents stated that they knew a great deal/fair amount about the CCG’s plans and priorities, which is just below the south London average of 81% (437) and above the national average of 78% (7027). 57% (13) of member practices stated that they knew a great deal/fair amount about the CCG’s plans and priorities and 43% (10) stated that they do not know very much or nothing at all.

“The plans and priorities are right – transformation is required to produce a more sustainable healthcare system. I would like to see increased emphasis on prevention

– managing the demand so as to give us some space to work with residents and clinicians to reconfigure services.”

16

61% (29) of all stakeholders strongly or tended to agree that they had been given the opportunity to influence the CCG’s plans and priorities, which is just below the south London average of 62% (337) and the national average of 63% (5641). 43% (10) of member practices strongly or tended to agree that they had been given the opportunity to influence and 39% (9) strongly or tended to disagree. 52% (25) of all respondents felt that their comments had been taken on board, which is the same as the south London average of 52% (282) and just below the national average of 53% (4793). 29% (14) respondents do not know whether their comments had been taken on board. 26% (6) of member practices strongly or tended to agree that their comments had been taken on board and 26% (6) strongly or tended to disagree. 67% (2) health and wellbeing/patient groups also strongly or tended to disagree as did 100% of CCGs, local authorities and 60% of wider stakeholders.

“The CCG is in a particularly challenging financial position and this has, of course, influenced its plans and priorities. The CCG has taken some bold and innovative

approaches which have the potential to deliver significant improvements but it is too early to be confident of success.”

76% (19) of all stakeholders (this question did not include member practices) strongly or tended to agree that the CCG has effectively communicated its plans and priorities to them, which is higher than the south London average of 74% (183) and the national average of 68% (2678). 53% (25) of all respondents strongly or tended to agree that the CCGs plans and priorities are the right ones. 30% (7) of member practices strongly or tended to agree, as did 100% (2) of health and wellbeing board respondents, 100% (3) Healthwatch or patient group respondents and 100% (5) local authority representatives. 61% (14) of member practices understood very or fairly well the financial implications of the CCG’s plans, compared to 47% (9) in 2012. 39% (8) of practices responded that they did not very well or not at all well understand the financial implications. 65% (15) of member practices understood very or fairly well the implications of the CCGs plans for service improvement compared to 47% (9) in 2012, 30% (7) did not very or not at all well understand these implications. “We are often involved at the stage where the intentions are communicated. It would

be good at an earlier stage where they are being developed.” 65% (15) of member practices very or fairly well understood the referral and activity implications of the CCGs plans compared to 58% (11) in 2012. 31% (7) did not understand very well or not at all well these implications. 78% (18) of member practices understood very or fairly well what is required of their practice to implement the CCG’s plans, compared to 63% (12) in 2012. 21% (5) did not very well or not at all well what is required.

17

80% (4) of NHS providers said that they are working very or fairly well with the CCG to develop long-term strategies and plans. Only 20% (1) of NHS providers said that the CCG understood very or fairly well the challenges facing provider organisations.

Domain four: Does the CCG have robust governance arrangements? 54% (26) of all stakeholders strongly or tended to agree that they have confidence that the CCG effectively monitors the quality of the services it commissions. 57% (13) of member practices strongly or tended to agree with this, as did 100% (3) of Healthwatch and patient groups, 60% (3) local authority and 40% (2) stakeholders. 30% (7) member practices strongly or tended to disagree with this statement. 81% (39) of all respondents strongly or tended to agree that if they had concerns about the quality of local services they would feel able to raise them with the CCG, which is just below the London average of 86% (464) and the national average of 86% (7732). 22% of member practices strongly or tended to disagree. “I think there is still some work to be done around engaging all constituent practices

in addition to having robust mechanisms by which to improve quality and accessibility to services.”

68% (32) of stakeholders strongly or tended to agree that they had confidence in the CCG to act on feedback it receives about the quality of services, which is just below the south London average of 70% (378) and the national average of 71% (6372). 52% (12) of member practices strongly or tended to agree with this statement as did 100% (2) health and wellbeing board respondents, 100% (3) of Healthwatch or patient groups and 100% (5) local authority representatives. 80% of NHS providers would said the amount of monitoring the CCG carries out is about right. 40% (2) of NHS providers tended to agree that when there is an issue with quality of service, the CCG’s response is proportionate and fair. 40% (2) neither agreed nor disagreed and 20% (1) didn’t know.

Domain five: Are CCGs working in partnership with others? 63% (30) of all stakeholders said the CCG had contributed a great or fair amount to discussions to local groups on quality and urgent care, compared to a south London average of 66% (355) and a national average of 62% (5583). 57% (13) of member practices said this whilst 9% (2) of practices said the CCG had not contributed very much or not at all. “Patient council member are encouraged to join various focus groups set up whereby they come together with CCG members to ensure that local health services will work

well for patients. Cardiology, end of life/palliative care, setting up of community clinics are just some examples.”

100% (5) of local authority respondents said they and the CCG are working very or fairly well together. 100% (5) local authority respondents said they and the CCG are

18

working very or fairly well together to deliver shared plans for integrated commissioning. 60% (3) of local authority respondents stated that the CCG had been very or fairly effective as part of the Local Safeguarding Children Board and 40% (2) did not know. 60% of these respondents stated that the CCG had been very or fairly effective as part of the Safeguarding Adults Board, 20% (1) didn’t know and 20% (1) said not very effective. 100% (2) health and wellbeing board respondents stated that the CCG is a very active member of the board and that the CCG has been very active in developing the Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy. 100% (2) of health and wellbeing board respondents strongly or tended to agree that the CCG delivers elements of the strategy for which it is responsible. 100% (1) of these respondents strongly or tended to agree that the CCG involves other members of the board in development of the CCG’s commissioning plans. 50% of these respondents strongly or tended to agree that the CCG has been actively involved in the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, 50% neither agreed nor disagreed, and 100% strongly or tended to agree that the CCG supplies information on its plans when it is required to do so.

Domain six: Does the CCG have strong and robust leadership? 65% (31) of all stakeholders strongly or tended to agree that the leadership of the CCG has the necessary blend of skills and experience, which is just higher than the CCG’s 2012 result of 65% (27). 57% (13) of member practices strongly or tended to agree that the leadership has the necessary blend of skills and experience as did 100% (3) of Healthwatch/patient groups. 17% (4) of member practices strongly or tended to disagree with this statement.

“Always available to meet and discuss issues.” 79% (38) of all respondents strongly or tended to agree that the CCG has clear and visible leadership, compared equally to 79% (33) in 2012 and is just higher than both the south London and national averages of 78%. 70% (16) of member practices, 100% (3) of Healthwatch/patient groups, 100% NHS providers, 100% (2) health and wellbeing board representatives, 100% (5) local authority representatives, strongly or tended to agree that there is clear and visible leadership. 22% (5) member practices strongly or tended to disagree. 63% (30) of all stakeholders strongly or tend to agree that they have confidence in the leadership to deliver its plans and priorities, which is comparable to 57% (24) in 2012 but lower than the south London average 72% (387) and the national average of 69% (6182). 100% (2) health and wellbeing board and 67% (2) of Healthwatch/ patient groups strongly or tended to agree that they had confidence in the leadership of the CCG to deliver its plans and priorities. However, only 48% of member practices strongly or tended to agree.

“Thank goodness we have high functioning colleagues as part of the CCG.”

19

50% (24) of stakeholders strongly or tended to agree that the leadership of the CCG is delivering continued quality improvements, which is lower than the south London average of 64% (344) and the national average of 60% (5410). 67% (2) of Healthwatch/patient groups and 100% (5) of local authorities and 60% (3) of wider stakeholders strongly or tended to agree that the leadership delivers continued quality improvements. 39% (9) of member practices strongly or tended to disagree as did 20% (1) NHS providers. 52% (25) of stakeholders strongly or tended to agree that they have confidence in the CCG to deliver improved outcomes for patients, which is lower than the south London average of 67% (362) and the national average of 65% (5868). 50% (1) health and wellbeing board, 67% (2) of Healthwatch/patient groups, 100% (5) local authority respondents strongly or tended to agree. 35% (8) of member practices and 80% (4) of NHS providers strongly or tended to agree. “Relationships and productivity has substantially improved over the past 12 months. Bexley CCG leadership takes a very forward looking and collaborative approach.”

71% (34) of all stakeholders strongly or tended to agree that there is clear and visible clinical leadership of the CCG which is just below the south London average of 77% (418) and the national average of 76% (6891). 57% (13) of member practices, 100% (3) of local Healthwatch/patient groups and 100% (5) of local authority respondents and 80% of all other stakeholders strongly or tended to agree that there is clear and visible clinical leadership and 20% (1) NHS providers strongly or tended to disagree. “Not sure they [the CCG] fully appreciate the difficulties in day-to-day practice when

trying to meet targets.” 52% (25) of all stakeholders strongly or tended to agree that they had confidence in the clinical leadership to deliver its plans and priorities which lower than the south London average of 70% (379) and the national average of 68% (6112). 50% (1) of health and wellbeing board, 67% (2) of local Healthwatch/patient groups, 100% (5) local authority, 60% (3) of wider stakeholders strongly or tended to agree that they have confidence in the clinical leadership to deliver it plans and priorities. Only 38% (8) of member practices strongly or tended to agree. 50% (14) of stakeholders strongly or tended to agree that the clinical leadership of the CCG is delivering continued quality improvements, which is lower than the south London average of 63% (342) and the national average of 61% (5467). 67% (2) of local Healthwatch/patient groups, 100% (5) local authority, 60% (3) wider stakeholders and 80% of other CCGs strongly or tended to agree that they have confidence in the clinical leadership of the CCG to deliver its plans and priorities. However, 35% (8) of member practices and 40% (2) of NHS providers strongly or tended to disagree.

Additional questions 71% (34) of stakeholders strongly felt the communication with stakeholders regarding the changes taking place at QMH were very or fairly good. 70% (16) of members, 100% (2) of health and wellbeing boards, 100% (3) of Healthwatch/patient

20

groups, 60% (3) of NHS providers and 100% (5) of local authority representatives through communication was very/fairly good.

“Queen Mary’s Hospital Sidcup is a clear example of a strategic approach that is delivering enhanced community-based care and more will follow.”

50% (24) of stakeholders felt engagement with patients and residents regarding the changes to local healthcare services was very or fairly good. Only 43% (10) and 20% (1) of NHS Providers felt engagement was very or fairly good. 53% (30) of stakeholders felt engaging local people and clinicians in the development of the CCGs commissioning plans was very or fairly good. 65% (31) of stakeholders felt the CCG addressed concerns about the quality of local healthcare services provided by local NHS organisations very or fairly well. 58% (28) of stakeholders felt the CCG collaborated with its partners to improve health and social care across the borough very or fairly well. Only 40% (10) of member practices and 40% (2) of NHS providers felt the CCG collaborated very or fairly well.

13-098464-01 Version 7 | Internal Use Only © Ipsos MORI

1

Version 1| Internal Use Only

Bexley CCG

CCG 360o stakeholder survey 2014

Main report


2

Background and objectives

Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) need to have strong relationships with a range of

health and care partners in order to be successful commissioners within the local system.

These relationships provide CCGs with on-going information, advice and knowledge to help

them make the best possible commissioning decisions.

The CCG 360o stakeholder survey is a key part of ensuring these strong relationships are in

place. The survey allows stakeholders to provide feedback on working relationships with

CCGs. The results from the survey will serve two purposes:

1. To provide a wealth of data for CCGs to help with their ongoing organisational

development, enabling them to continue to build strong and productive relationships with

stakeholders. The findings can provide a valuable tool for all CCGs to be able to evaluate

their progress and inform their organisational decisions.

2. To feed into assurance conversations between NHS England Area Teams and CCGs. The

survey will form part of the evidence used to assess whether the stakeholder relationships,

forged during the transition through authorisation, continue to be central to the effective

commissioning of services by CCGs, and in doing so, improve quality and outcomes for

patients.

Bexley CCG


3

Methodology and technical details

• It was the responsibility of each CCG to provide the list of

stakeholders to invite to take part in the CCG 360o stakeholder

survey.

• CCGs were provided with a core list of stakeholder organisations

(outlined in the table opposite) to be included in their stakeholder

list. Beyond this however, CCGs had flexibility to determine which

individual within each organisation was the most appropriate to

nominate.

• They were also given the opportunity to add up to seven additional

stakeholders they wanted to include locally (they are referred to in

this report as ‘Wider stakeholders’). These included:

Commissioning Support Units, Health Education England, lower

tier LAs, MPs, private providers, Public Health England, social care

/ community organisations, voluntary / third sector organisations

and other stakeholders and clinicians.

• The survey was conducted primarily online via email invitations.

Stakeholders who did not respond to the email invitation, and

stakeholders for whom an email address was not provided, were

telephoned by an Ipsos MORI interviewer who encouraged

response and offered the opportunity to complete the survey by

telephone.

Core stakeholder framework

GP member practices One from every

member practice

Other CCGs Up to five

Health and wellbeing

boards Up to two per HWB

Upper tier or unitary local

authorities Up to five per LA

Local Healthwatch One per local

Healthwatch

Other patient groups Up to three

NHS providers – Acute Up to two from each

provider

NHS providers – Mental

health trusts

Up to two from each

provider

NHS providers –

Community health trusts

Up to two from each

provider

Bexley CCG


4

Methodology and technical details

• Within the survey,

stakeholders were asked a

series of questions about

their working relationship with

the CCG. In addition, to

reflect each core stakeholder

group’s different area of

expertise and knowledge,

they were presented with a

short section of questions

specific to the stakeholder

group they represent.

• Fieldwork was conducted

between 12 March 2014 and

8 April 2014.

• 48 of the CCG’s stakeholders

completed the survey. The

overall response rate was

84% which varied across the

stakeholder groups shown in

the table opposite.

Survey response rates for Bexley CCG

Stakeholder group

Invited to take

part in survey

Completed

survey Response rate

GP member practices 28 23 82%

Health and wellbeing boards 2 2 100%

Local Healthwatch/patient

groups 5 3 60%

NHS providers 6 5 83%

Other CCGs 5 5 100%

Upper tier or unitary local

authorities 5 5 100%

Wider stakeholders 6 5 83%

Bexley CCG


5

Interpreting the results

• For each question, the responses to each answer are presented both as a percentage (%)

and the number of stakeholders giving a certain answer, which are included in brackets (n).

• The number of stakeholders answering (the base size) is stated for each question. The

total number of responses is shown at the bottom of each chart and in every table.

• For questions with fewer than 30 stakeholders answering, we strongly recommend that you

look at the number of stakeholders giving each response rather than the percentage, as

the percentage can be misleading when based on so few stakeholders.

• This report presents the results from Bexley CCG's stakeholder survey. Throughout the

report, ‘the CCG / your CCG’ refers to Bexley CCG.

• Where a result for the ‘Area team’ is presented, this refers to the overall score across

South London Area Team.

• Where results do not sum to 100%, or where individual responses (e.g. tend to agree;

strongly agree) do not sum to combined responses (e.g. strongly/tend to agree) this is due

to rounding.

Bexley CCG


6

Using the results – the reports

Bexley CCG

• The results of the CCG 360 degree stakeholder survey are presented for each CCG in two

separate reports – a summary report and a main report.

• The summary report shows the results at CCG level for the questions asked of all stakeholders

(i.e. only those in section 1 of the questionnaire).

• This report provides CCGs with an ‘at a glance’ visual summary of the results for the key

questions, including direction of travel comparisons where appropriate.

• The main report shows the results for all questions in the survey including any local questions

where CCGs included them. The results for each question are provided at CCG level with a

breakdown also shown for each of the core stakeholder groups where relevant.

• This report allows CCGs to interrogate the data in more detail.

• The main report has been structured by the six assurance domains. There is also an additional

initial section on overall engagement and relationships which contains the general questions that

are not linked to specific domains.

• At the end of each section of the main report, there is a table summarising the results, along with

some comparative data for those questions asked of all stakeholders.


7

Using the results – comparisons

Bexley CCG

• For some questions, data has been included in the reports to compare the results for the CCG

with:

• The combined national CCG average in 2014

• The 2014 average across all CCGs in the CCG’s Area Team

• The CCG’s result in 2012

• The comparisons are included to provide a rough headline guide only and should be

treated with caution due to the low numbers of respondents and differences in

stakeholder lists.

• Any differences are not necessarily statistically significant differences; a higher score than the

Area Team average does not always equate to ‘better’ performance, and a higher score than in

2012 does not necessarily mean the CCG has improved.

• The comparisons offer a starting point to inform wider discussions about the CCG’s ongoing

organisational development and its relationships with stakeholders. For example, they may

indicate areas in which stakeholders think the CCG is performing relatively less well, for the CCG

to discuss internally and externally to identify what improvements can be made in this area, if

any.


8

Overall engagement and

relationships


9

Overall, to what extent, if at all, do you feel you have been

engaged by the CCG over the past 12 months?

Total responses : All stakeholders (2014: 48); (2012: 42)

Bexley CCG

29%

48%

23% 14

23

11

A great deal A fair amount Not very much

Not at all Don't know

Stakeholder group Base Great deal /

Fair amount

Not very much

/ Not at all

GP member practices 23 70% (16) 30% (7)

Health and wellbeing boards 2 100% (2) -% (0)


groups 3 67% (2) 33% (1)

NHS providers 5 100% (5) -% (0)

Other CCGs 5 80% (4) 20% (1)

Upper tier/unitary local

authorities 5 80% (4) 20% (1)

Wider stakeholders 5 80% (4) 20% (1)

77% (37) 2014 Great deal /

Fair amount

All stakeholders By stakeholder group

64% (27) *2012 Great deal /

Fair amount

* 2012 question wording: ‘Overall, to what extent, if at all, do you feel you have been engaged by

the CCG?’

Fieldwork: 12 March - 8 April 2014


10

31%

31%

23%

8% 4% 2%

15

15

11

4

2 1

Very satisfied Fairly satisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied Don't know

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way in which the CCG

has engaged with you over the past 12 months?

All stakeholders who have been engaged by

the CCG

By stakeholder group

* 2012 question wording: ‘How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way in which the CCG has

engaged with you so far?’

Stakeholder group Base Very / Fairly

satisfied

Very / Fairly

dissatisfied




groups 3 67% (2) 33% (1)

NHS providers 5 40% (2) -% (0)

Other CCGs 5 80% (4) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)


63%

(30)

2014 Very satisfied /

Fairly satisfied

59%

(23)

*2012 Very satisfied /

Fairly satisfied

Total responses : All stakeholders who say they have been engaged by CCG (2014: 48); (2012: 39)

Bexley CCG Fieldwork: 12 March - 8 April 2014


11

17%

35%

15%

21%

4% 2% 6%

8

17

7

10

2 1

3

Strongly agree Tend to agreeNeither agree nor disagree Tend to disagreeStrongly disagree Don't knowI have not given any views

Still thinking about the past 12 months, to what extent do you agree or

disagree that the CCG has listened to your views where you have provided

them?


* 2012 question wording: ‘To what extent do you agree or disagree that the CCG has listened to

your views where you have provided them?’

Stakeholder group Base Strongly /

Tend to agree

Strongly / Tend

to disagree




groups 3 67% (2) -% (0)

NHS providers 5 40% (2) 40% (2)

Other CCGs 5 80% (4) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)


52%

(25)

2014 Strongly agree /

Tend to agree

55%

(23)

*2012 Strongly agree /

Tend to agree




12

8%

33%

23%

15%

4%

6%

10%

4

16

11

7

2

3

5

Strongly agree Tend to agree

Neither agree nor disagree Tend to disagree

Strongly disagree Don't know

I have not given any suggestions

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the CCG has acted on

your suggestions?



Tend to agree

Strongly / Tend

to disagree


Health and wellbeing boards 2 -% (0) -% (0)


groups 3 67% (2) -% (0)

NHS providers 5 40% (2) 20% (1)

Other CCGs 5 80% (4) -% (0)


authorities 5 80% (4) -% (0)


42%

(20)

2014 Strongly agree

/ Tend to agree

36%

(15)

2012 Strongly agree

/ Tend to agree




13

38%

38%

8%

10%

2%

4%

18

18

4

5

1 2

Very good Fairly good

Neither good nor poor Fairly poor

Very poor Don't know

I/we do not have a working relationship

Overall, how would you rate your working relationship with the CCG?


Stakeholder group Base Very good /

Fairly good

Very poor /

Fairly poor




groups 3 67% (2) 33% (1)


Other CCGs 5 80% (4) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)


75% (36) 2014 Very good /

Fairly good 57% (24)

2012 Very good /

Fairly good



All stakeholders


14

24%

30%

41%

4% 11

14

19

2

Got much better Got a little better

Stayed about the same Got a little worse

Got much worse Don't know

Thinking back over the past 12 months, would you say your working

relationship with the CCG has got better, got worse or has it stayed about the

same?

Total responses : All stakeholders who say they have a working relationship with the CCG (46)

Bexley CCG


Stakeholder group Base Got much /

A little better

Got much / A

little worse




groups 3 67% (2) -% (0)


Other CCGs 4 100% (4) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)

Wider stakeholders 5 60% (3) -% (0)


All stakeholders who say they have a working

relationship with the CCG


15

Engagement and relationships: Summary

Base

Overall, to what extent, if at all, do you feel you have been engaged by the CCG over the past 12

months?

77% (37) a great deal

/ a fair amount

All stakeholders (48)

And how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way in which the CCG has engaged with you

over the past 12 months?

63% (30) very / fairly

satisfied

All stakeholders who have

been engaged (48)

Still thinking about the past 12 months, to what extent do you agree or disagree that the CCG

has listened to your views where you have provided them?

52% (25) strongly /

tend to agree


To what extent do you agree or disagree that the CCG has acted on your suggestions? 42% (20) strongly /

tend to agree


Overall, how would you rate your working relationship with the CCG? 75% (36) very / fairly

good


Thinking back over the past 12 months, would you say your working relationship with the CCG

has got better, got worse or has it stayed about the same?

54% (25) much better

/ a little better

All stakeholders who say

they have a working


(46)



16

The CCG 2012 The CCG 2014 National CCG average 2014 CCG Area Team

Engagement and relationships: CCG comparisons

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Satisfaction with engagement

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way in which the CCG has engaged with you

over the past 12 months?

Percentage of stakeholders saying very / fairly satisfied

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Engagement

Overall, to what extent, if at all, do you feel you have been engaged by the CCG over the

past 12 months?

Percentage of stakeholders saying a fair amount / a great deal

Base 2014: All stakeholders (48) Base CCG Area Team: All stakeholders (540)

Base 2012: All stakeholders (42) Base national average: All stakeholders (9018)

Base 2014: All stakeholders who

say they have been

engaged

(48) Base CCG Area Team: All stakeholders who

say they have been

engaged

(531)

Base 2012: (39) Base national average: (8852)

Bexley CCG

All comparisons are indicative only and do not imply statistical significance


• The majority of stakeholders who say they

have been engaged feel satisfied (fairly or very)

with the way they have been engaged by the

CCG.

• The majority of stakeholders say that they have

been engaged either a great deal or a fair

amount.

• This is about the same as the finding for CCGs

overall.

• This is lower than the finding for CCGs overall.


17



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Acting on suggestions

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the CCG has acted on your suggestions?

Percentage of stakeholders saying strongly agree / tend to agree

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Listening to views

Still thinking about the past 12 months, to what extent, do you agree or disagree that the

CCG has listened to your views where you have provided them?








• Around half of stakeholders say that the CCG

has acted on their suggestions where they

have provided them.


has listened to their views.



overall.


18



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Change in working relationship

Thinking back over the past 12 months, would you say your working relationship with the

CCG has got better, got worse or has it stayed about the same?

Percentage of stakeholders saying got much better / got a little better

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Working relationship

Overall, how would you rate your working relationship with the CCG?

Percentage of stakeholders saying very good / fairly good



Base 2014: All stakeholders who say

they have a working


(46) Base CCG Area Team: All stakeholders who say

they have a working


(529)

Base national average: (8881)



• Around half of stakeholders say that their

working relationship with the CCG has got

better over the past 12 months.


a good working relationship with the CCG.


overall.


overall.


19

Domain 1: Are patients receiving

clinically commissioned, high

quality services?


20

4%

39%

48%

4% 4%

1

9

11

1 1

Very effective Fairly effective Not very effective Not at all effective Don't know

How effective, if at all, would you say the arrangements are for

member participation and decision-making in your CCG?

Total responses : All member practices (2014:23); (2012: 19)

Bexley CCG


43%

(10) Very / Fairly

effective 2014

63%

(12) Very / Fairly

effective 2012

All member practices


21

4%

17%

43%

35%

1

4

10

8

Very involved Fairly involved Not very involved Not at all involved Don't know

How involved, if at all, do you feel you are in your CCG’s decision

making process?

Total responses : All member practices (23)




22

9%

26%

26%

22%

17%

2

6

6

5

4

Very confident Fairly confident Not very confident Not at all confident Don't know

How confident are you, if at all, in the systems to sustain two-way

accountability between your CCG and its member practices in the CCG?

Total responses : All member practices (2014: 23); (2012: 19)

Bexley CCG

35%

(8) Very / Fairly

confident 2014

47%

(9) Very / Fairly

confident 2012




23

Number

1

1

8

9

1

1

0

2

Approximately how often, if at all, do you have the opportunity

for direct discussions with your CCG’s leaders?



4%

4%

35%

39%

4%

4%

0%

9%

Weekly

Twice a month

Once a month

Quarterly

Twice a year

Once a year

Less than once a year

Don't know



24

17%

39% 17%

13%

4%

9%

4

9

4

3

1

2

Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree nor disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree Don't know

To what extent do you agree or disagree that representatives from member

practices are able to take a leadership role within the CCG if they want to?


Bexley CCG




25

20%

60%

20%

1

3

1


To what extent do you agree or disagree that quality is a key focus of your

contracts with the CCG?

Total responses : All NHS providers (5)

Bexley CCG


All NHS providers


26

How involved, if at all, would you say clinicians from the CCG are in

discussions about…?

20%

40%

40%

1

2

2


Quality



All NHS providers


27

How involved, if at all, would you say clinicians from the CCG are in

discussions about…?

40%

20%

40% 2

1

2


Service redesign


Bexley CCG


All NHS providers


28

Domain 1: Summary

Base

How effective, if at all, would you say the arrangements are for member participation and

decision-making in your CCG?


effective

All member practices (23)

How involved, if at all, do you feel you are in your CCG’s decision-making process? 22% (5) very / fairly

involved


How confident are you, if at all, in the systems to sustain two-way accountability between your

CCG and its member practices in the CCG?


confident


To what extent do you agree or disagree that representatives from member practices are able to

take a leadership role within the CCG if they want to?

57% (13) strongly /

tend to agree


To what extent do you agree or disagree that quality is a key focus of your contracts with your

CCG?

20% (1) strongly /

tend to agree

All NHS providers (5)

How involved, if at all, would you say clinicians from the CCG are in discussions about…?

A. Quality

B. Service redesign


involved



involved



29

Domain 2: Are patients and the

public actively engaged and

involved?


30

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following

statements about the way in which the CCG commissions services…?

Total responses : All stakeholders (48)

Bexley CCG

52%

58%

63%

58%

50%

15%

17%

13%

19%

21%

23%

19%

17%

21%

19%

10%

6%

8%

2%

10%

Strongly agree / Tend to agree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly disagree / Tend to disagree Don't know

The CCG involves and engages with the

right individuals and organisations when

making commissioning decisions

I have confidence in the CCG to

commission high quality services for the

local population

I understand the reasons for the decisions

that the CCG makes when commissioning

services

The CCG effectively communicates its

commissioning decisions with me

The CCG's plans will deliver continuous

improvement in quality within the available

resources

Number

25 7 11 5

28 8 9 3

30 6 8 4

28 9 10 1

24 10 9 5


All stakeholders


31




Bexley CCG

The CCG involves and engages with the right individuals and organisations when making commissioning

decisions




Tend to agree

Strongly / Tend

to disagree




groups 3 67% (2) 33% (1)

NHS providers 5 40% (2) 40% (2)

Other CCGs 5 60% (3) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)



15%

38%

15%

17%

6%

10%

7

18

7

8

3

5





32



I have confidence in the CCG to commission high quality services for the local population

All stakeholders




Tend to agree

Strongly / Tend

to disagree




groups 3 67% (2) -% (0)

NHS providers 5 20% (1) 40% (2)

Other CCGs 5 80% (4) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)



25%

33%

17%

10%

8% 6% 12

16

8

5

4

3





Bexley CCG


33



I understand the reasons for the decisions that the CCG makes when commissioning services



Tend to agree

Strongly / Tend

to disagree




groups 3 100% (3) -% (0)

NHS providers 5 40% (2) 20% (1)

Other CCGs 5 80% (4) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)



25%

38%

13%

17%

8% 12

18

6

8

4





Bexley CCG


34



The CCG effectively communicates its commissioning decisions with me

All stakeholders




Tend to agree

Strongly / Tend

to disagree




groups 3 67% (2) 33% (1)

NHS providers 5 40% (2) 20% (1)

Other CCGs 5 60% (3) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)



15%

44%

19%

13%

8% 2%

7

21

9

6

4 1





Bexley CCG


35



19%

31% 21%

10%

8%

10%

9

15

10

5

4

5




The CCG’s plans will deliver continuous improvement in quality within the available resources

All stakeholders




Tend to agree

Strongly / Tend

to disagree




groups 3 67% (2) -% (0)

NHS providers 5 20% (1) 60% (3)

Other CCGs 5 60% (3) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)


Fieldwork: 12 March - 8 April 2014 Total responses : All stakeholders (48)

Bexley CCG


36

67%

33%

2

1

Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don't know

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the steps taken by the CCG

to engage with patients and the public?

Total responses : All Healthwatch and patient group stakeholders (3)


All Healthwatch and patient group stakeholders


37

33%

33%

33%

1

1

1

A great deal A fair amount Just a little Not at all Don't know

To what extent, if at all, do you feel that the CCG has engaged with

seldom heard groups?


Bexley CCG




38


statements…?

67%

67%

33%

33%

Strongly agree / Tend to agree Neither agree nor disagree

Strongly disagree / Tend to disagree Don't know

The CCG’s commissioning decisions are

open and transparent so patients and the

public are able to understand how decisions

have been made if they want to

Patients and the public have the opportunity

to input into the CCG’s commissioning

decisions

Number

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 0





39


statements…?

67%

33%

2

1


The CCG’s commissioning decisions are open and transparent so patients and the public are able to

understand how decisions have been made if they want to


Bexley CCG




40


statements…?

67%

33%

2

1


Patients and the public have the opportunity to input into the CCG’s commissioning decisions





41

67%

33%

2

1


To what extent do you agree or disagree that the CCG listens to and

acts on any concerns, complaints or issues that are raised?





42

Domain 2: Summary

Base

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the way in

which the CCG commissions services…?

A. The CCG involves and engages with the right individuals and organisations when

making commissioning decisions

B. I have confidence in the CCG to commission high quality services for the local

population

C. I understand the reasons for the decisions that the CCG makes when commissioning

services

D. The CCG effectively communicates its commissioning decisions with me

E. The CCG’s plans will deliver continuous improvement in quality within the available

resources

52% (25) strongly /

tend to agree


58% (28) strongly /

tend to agree

63% (30) strongly /

tend to agree

58% (28) strongly /

tend to agree

50% (24) strongly /

tend to agree

How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the steps taken by the CCG to engage with

patients and the public?


satisfied

All Healthwatch and

patient group stakeholders

(3)

To what extent, if at all, do you feel that the CCG has engaged with seldom heard

groups?

67% (2) a great deal /

a fair amount

All Healthwatch and


(3)



43

Domain 2: Summary

Base

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements…?

A. The CCG’s commissioning decisions are open and transparent so patients and the

public are able to understand how decisions have been made if they want to

B. Patients and the public have the opportunity to input into the CCG’s commissioning

decisions

67% (2) strongly /

tend to agree

All Healthwatch and


(3)

67% (2) strongly /

tend to agree

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the CCG listens to and acts on any

concerns, complaints or issues that are raised?

100% (3) strongly /

tend to agree

All Healthwatch and


(3)



44

The CCG 2014 National CCG average 2014 CCG Area Team

Domain 2: CCG comparisons

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

High quality services

I have confidence in the CCG to commission high quality services for the local population


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100



Involving and engaging the right individuals and organisations

The CCG involves and engages with the right individuals and organisations when making

commissioning decisions



Base national average: All stakeholders (9018)



Bexley CCG



• Around half of stakeholders say that they have

confidence in the CCG to commission high

quality services for the local population.


involves and engages with the right individuals

and organisations when making commissioning

decisions.



overall.


45



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Communicating commissioning decisions

The CCG effectively communicates its commissioning decisions with me


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100



Understanding of commissioning decisions

I understand the reasons for the decisions that the CCG makes when commissioning

services







Fieldwork: 12 March - 8 April 2014 Bexley CCG


effectively communicates its commissioning

decisions.

• The majority of stakeholders say that they

understand the reasons for the decisions that

the CCG makes.


overall.


overall.


46



• Around half of stakeholders agree that the

CCG’s plans will deliver continuous

improvement in quality within available

resources.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100



Continuous improvement in quality

The CCG’s plans will deliver continuous improvement in quality within the available

resources







overall.


47

Domain 3: Are CCG plans delivering

better outcomes for patients?


48

13%

67%

13%

8%

6

32

6

4

A great deal A fair amount Not very much Nothing at all

How much would you say you know about the CCG’s plans and

priorities?


Bexley CCG


Stakeholder group Base Great deal/

Fair amount

Not very much/

Nothing at all




groups 3 100% (3) -% (0)

NHS providers 5 100% (5) -% (0)

Other CCGs 5 100% (5) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)




49

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following

statements about the CCG’s plans and priorities?

Total responses : All stakeholders (48); *All stakeholders except member practices (25)

Bexley CCG

60%

52%

76%

52%

19%

29%

20%

23%

21%

17%

4%

19%

2%

6%


I have been given the opportunity to

influence the CCG’s plans and priorities

When I have commented on the CCG’s

plans and priorities I feel that my comments

have been taken on board

*The CCG has effectively communicated its

plans and priorities to me

The CCG’s plans and priorities are the right

ones

Number

29 9 10 0

25 14 8 1

19 5 1 0

25 11 9 3


All stakeholders / All stakeholders except member practices


50


statements about the CCG’s plans and priorities…?


Bexley CCG

21%

40%

19%

19%

2% 10

19

9

9

1




I have been given the opportunity to influence the CCG’s plans and priorities

All stakeholders




Tend to agree

Strongly / Tend

to disagree




groups 3 100% (3) -% (0)

NHS providers 5 40% (2) 20% (1)

Other CCGs 5 80% (4) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)




51

17%

35% 29%

10%

6%

2%

8

17 14

5

3 1






When I have commented on the CCG’s plans and priorities I feel that my comments have been taken on

board




Bexley CCG


Tend to agree

Strongly / Tend

to disagree




groups 3 67% (2) -% (0)

NHS providers 5 40% (2) 20% (1)

Other CCGs 5 100% (5) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)




52

28%

48%

20%

4% 7

12

5

1






The CCG has effectively communicated its plans and priorities to me

All stakeholders except member practices



Total responses : All stakeholders except member practices (25)

Bexley CCG


Tend to agree

Strongly / Tend

to disagree



groups 3 67% (2) -% (0)

NHS providers 5 40% (2) 20% (1)

Other CCGs 5 100% (5) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)




53

13%

40% 23%

17% 2%

6%

6

19

11

8

1 3






The CCG’s plans and priorities are the right ones

All stakeholders




Bexley CCG

Stakeholder group Base Strongly/Tend

to agree

Strongly/Tend

to disagree




groups 3 100% (3) -% (0)

NHS providers 5 20% (1) 60% (3)

Other CCGs 5 80% (4) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)




54

How well, if at all, would you say you understand…?


Bexley CCG

61%

65%

65%

39%

30%

30%

4%

4%

Very well / Fairly well Not very well / Not at all well Don't know

The financial implications of the CCG’s

plans

The implications of the CCG’s plans for

service improvement

The referral and activity implications of the

CCG’s plans

Number

14 9 0

15 7 1

15 7 1




55

How well, if at all, would you say that you understand…?

17%

43%

26%

13%

4

10

6

3

Very well Fairly well Not very well Not at all well Don't know

The financial implications of the CCG’s plans


Bexley CCG

61% (14) Very / Fairly

well 2014


well 2012




56


The implications of the CCG’s plans for service improvement


Bexley CCG


17%

48%

26%

4% 4%

4

11

6

1 1



well 2014


well 2012



57


The referral and activity implications of the CCG’s plans


Bexley CCG


13%

52%

22%

9% 4%

3

12

5

2

1



well 2014


well 2012



58

26%

52%

17%

4% 6

12

4

1


How well, if at all, do you understand what is required of your practice in

order to implement the CCG’s plans?


Bexley CCG

78%

(18)

Very well /

Fairly well

2014

63%

(12)

Very well /

Fairly well

2012




59

80%

20%

4

1


How well, if at all, would you say the CCG and your organisation are working

together to develop long-term strategies and plans?



All NHS providers


60

20%

60%

20%

1

3

1


How well, if at all, would you say the CCG understands the challenges facing

your provider organisation?


Bexley CCG


All NHS providers


61

Domain 3: Summary

Base

How much would you say you know about the CCG’s plans and priorities? 79% (38) a great

deal / a fair amount


To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the CCG’s

plans and priorities…?

A. I have been given the opportunity to influence the CCG’s plans and priorities

B. When I have commented on the CCG’s plans and priorities I feel that my comments have

been taken on board

C. The CCG has effectively communicated its plans and priorities to me

D. The CCG’s plans and priorities are the right ones

60% (29) strongly /

tend to agree All stakeholders (48)

52% (25) strongly /

tend to agree


76% (19) strongly /

tend to agree All stakeholders except

member practices (25)

52% (25) strongly /

tend to agree



A. The financial implications of the CCG’s plans

B. The implications of the CCG’s plans for service improvement

C. The referral and activity implications of the CCG’s plans

61% (14) very well /

fairly well



fairly well


fairly well

How well, if at all, do you understand what is required of your practice in order to implement the

CCG’s plans?


fairly well


How well, if at all, would you say the CCG and your organisation are working together to

develop long-term strategies and plans?

80% (4) very well /

fairly well


How well, if at all, would you say the CCG understands the challenges facing your provider

organisation?

20% (1) very well /

fairly well




62



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the

CCG’s plans and priorities?

Influence over the CCG’s plans and priorities

I have been given the opportunity to influence the CCG’s plans and priorities


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Knowledge of plans and priorities

How much would you say you know about the CCG’s plans and priorities?

Percentage of stakeholders saying a great deal / a fair amount





Bexley CCG




been given the opportunity to influence the

CCG’s plans and priorities.

• The majority of stakeholders say that they

know a great deal or a fair amount about the

CCG’s plans and priorities.


overall.


overall.


63



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

The right plans and priorities

The CCG’s plans and priorities are the right ones


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the

CCG’s plans and priorities?

Taking comments on board

When I have commented on the CCG’s plans and priorities I feel that my comments have

been taken on board









CCG’s plans and priorities are the right ones.

• Around half of stakeholders say that they feel

the CCG takes on board their comments on the

plans and priorities.


overall.


overall.


64

Domain 4: Does the CCG have robust

governance arrangements?


65

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about

the way in which the CCG monitors and reviews the quality of commissioned

services…?


Bexley CCG

54%

81%

67%

21%

8%

19%

17%

10%

15%

8%


I have confidence that the CCG effectively

monitors the quality of the services it

commissions

If I had concerns about the quality of local

services I would feel able to raise my

concerns with the CCG

I have confidence in the CCG to act on

feedback it receives about the quality of

services

Number

26 10 8 4

39 4 5 0

32 9 7 0


All stakeholders


66


statements about the way in which the CCG monitors and reviews the quality

of commissioned services…?


Bexley CCG

21%

33% 21%

13%

4% 8%

10

16 10

6

2

4

Strongly agree Tend to agreeNeither agree nor disagree Tend to disagreeStrongly disagree Don't know

I have confidence that the CCG effectively monitors the quality of the services it commissions

All stakeholders




Tend to agree

Strongly / Tend

to disagree




groups 3 100% (3) -% (0)


Other CCGs 5 80% (4) -% (0)


authorities 5 60% (3) -% (0)




67




If I had concerns about the quality of local services I would feel able to raise my concerns with the CCG

All stakeholders




Bexley CCG

46%

35%

8%

8% 2%

22

17

4

4 1





Tend to agree

Strongly / Tend

to disagree




groups 3 100% (3) -% (0)


Other CCGs 5 100% (5) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)



68




I have confidence in the CCG to act on feedback it receives about the quality of services

All stakeholders




Bexley CCG

21%

46%

19%

13% 2%

10

22

9

6 1





Tend to agree

Strongly / Tend

to disagree




groups 3 100% (3) -% (0)


Other CCGs 5 100% (5) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)



69

20%

80%

1

4

Too much About right Too little Don't know

Would you say that the amount of monitoring the CCG carries out on the

quality of your services is too much, too little or about right?



All NHS providers


70


statement…?

40%

40%

20%

2

2

1

Strongly agree Tend to agreeNeither agree nor disagree Tend to disagreeStrongly disagree Don't knowThere has never been an issue with the quality of services

When there is an issue with the quality of services, the response of the CCG is proportionate and fair



All NHS providers


71

Domain 4: Summary

Base


which the CCG monitors and reviews the quality of commissioned services…?

A. I have confidence that the CCG effectively monitors the quality of the services it

commissions

B. If I had concerns about the quality of local services I would feel able to raise my

concerns with the CCG

C. I have confidence in the CCG to act on feedback it receives about the quality of

services

54% (26) strongly /

tend to agree


81% (39) strongly /

tend to agree

67% (32) strongly /

tend to agree

Would you say that the amount of monitoring the CCG carries out on the quality of your

services is too much, too little or about right?

80% (4) about right All NHS providers (5)

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement…?

When there is an issue with the quality of services, the response of the CCG is

proportionate and fair 40% (2) strongly /

tend to agree




72



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Ability to raise concerns within the CCG

If I had concerns about the quality of local services I would feel able to raise my concerns

with the CCG


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100



Confidence in monitoring of services

I have confidence that the CCG effectively monitors the quality of the services it

commissions






Bexley CCG



• Most stakeholders agree they would feel able

to raise any concerns about the quality of

services with the CCG.

• Around half of stakeholders are confident that

the CCG effectively monitors the quality of

services it commissions.


overall.


overall.


73



• The majority of stakeholders are confident that

the CCG would act on feedback it received

about the quality of services.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100



Confidence in CCG to act on feedback

I have confidence in the CCG to act on feedback it receives about the quality of services







overall.


74

Domain 5: Are CCGs working in

partnership with others?


75

23%

40%

6%

2%

29%

11

19

3

1

14

A great deal A fair amount Not very much

Not at all Don't know


Bexley CCG


Please now think about discussions that take place about the wider health economy in

your area, through local groups such as the Quality Surveillance Group and Urgent Care

Working Group.

To what extent, if at all, would you say the CCG has contributed to wider discussions through

these groups?

Stakeholder group Base Great deal /

Fair amount

Not very much

/ Not at all




groups 3 100% (3) -% (0)

NHS providers 5 60% (3) 20% (1)

Other CCGs 5 100% (5) -% (0)


authorities 5 80% (4) -% (0)




76

How well, if at all, would you say the CCG and your local authority are

working together to develop shared plans for integrated commissioning?

Total responses : All upper tier / unitary local authority stakeholders (5)

Bexley CCG

100%

5



All upper tier / unitary local authority stakeholders


77

How well, if at all, would you say the CCG and your local authority are

working together to deliver shared plans for integrated commissioning?

100%

5






78

How effective, if at all, has the CCG been as part of the Local

Safeguarding Children Board?

20%

40%

40%

1

2

2



Bexley CCG




79

How effective, if at all, has the CCG been as part of the Safeguarding

Adults Board?

20%

40%

20%

20%

1

2

1

1



Bexley CCG




80

How active, if at all, would you say the CCG is as a member of the

health and wellbeing board?

Total responses : All health and wellbeing board stakeholders (2)

Bexley CCG

100%

2

Very active Fairly active Not very active Not at all active Don't know


All health and wellbeing board stakeholders


81

How active, if at all, would you say the CCG has been in developing your

Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy?

50% 50% 1 1

Very active Fairly active Not very active Not at all active Don't know





82


statements…?

100%

100%

50%

100%

50%

Strongly agree / Tend to agree Neither agree nor disagree Strongly disagree / Tend to disagree

Don't know Too early to say

The CCG delivers on the elements of the

Health and Wellbeing Strategy for which it

is responsible

The CCG involves other members of the

health and wellbeing board in the

development of its commissioning plans

The CCG has been actively involved in the

Joint Strategic Needs Assessment

The CCG supplies necessary information,

such as the CCG’s plan of how it proposes

to exercise its functions, when it is required

to do so

Number

2 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0

1 1 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0


Bexley CCG




83


statements…?

100%

2

Strongly agree Tend to agree Neither agree nor disagree Tend to disagree Strongly disagree Too early to say Don't know

The CCG delivers on the elements of the Health and Wellbeing Strategy for which it is responsible





84


statements…?

The CCG involves other members of the health and wellbeing board in the development of its

commissioning plans


100%

2



Bexley CCG



85


statements…?

The CCG has been actively involved in the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment


50% 50% 1 1



Bexley CCG



86


statements…?

The CCG supplies necessary information, such as the CCG’s plan of how it proposes to exercise its

functions, when it is required to do so


100%

2



Bexley CCG



87

How well, if at all, would you say the CCG and the local authority are working

together to develop shared plans for integrated commissioning?

100%

2



Bexley CCG




88

And how well, if at all, would you say the CCG and the local authority are

working together to deliver shared plans for integrated commissioning?

100%

2



Bexley CCG




89

Domain 5: Summary

Base


your area, through local groups such as the Quality Surveillance Group and Urgent

Care Working Group.

To what extent, if at all, would you say the CCG has contributed to wider discussions

through these groups?

63% (30) a great

deal / a fair amount


How well, if at all, would you say the CCG and your local authority are working together

to develop shared plans for integrated commissioning?


fairly well

All upper tier / unitary local

authority stakeholders (5)

How well, if at all, would you say the CCG and your local authority are working together

to deliver shared plans for integrated commissioning?


fairly well



How effective, if at all, has the CCG been as part of the Local Safeguarding Children

Board?

60% (3) very

effective / fairly

effective



How effective, if at all, has the CCG been as part of the Safeguarding Adults Board? 60% (3) very

effective / fairly

effective



How active, if at all, would you say the CCG is as a member of the health and wellbeing

board?

100% (2) very active

/ fairly active

All health and wellbeing

board stakeholders (2)

How active, if at all, would you say the CCG has been in developing your Joint Health

and Wellbeing Strategy?

50% (1) very active /

fairly active





90

Domain 5: Summary

Base

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements…?

A. The CCG delivers on the elements of the Health and Wellbeing Strategy for which it

is responsible

B. The CCG involves other members of the health and wellbeing board in the

development of its commissioning plans

C. The CCG has been actively involved in the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment

D. The CCG supplies the necessary information, such as the CCG’s plan of how it

proposes to exercise its functions, when it is required to do so

100% (2) strongly /

tend to agree



100% (2) strongly /

tend to agree

50% (1) strongly /

tend to agree

100% (2) strongly /

tend to agree

How well, if at all, would you say the CCG and the local authority are working together

to develop shared plans for integrated commissioning?


fairly well



And how well, if at all, would you say the CCG and the local authority are working

together to deliver shared plans for integrated commissioning?


fairly well





91



• The majority of stakeholders agree that the

CCG has contributed to discussions about the

wider health economy.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Contributing to wider discussions


your area, though local groups such as the Quality Surveillance Group and Urgent Care

Working Group.

To what extent, if at all would you say the CCG has contributed to wider discussions

through these groups?




Bexley CCG




overall.


92

Domain 6: Does the CCG have

strong and robust leadership?


93

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements

about the overall leadership of the CCG…?


Bexley CCG

65%

79%

63%

50%

52%

19%

6%

19%

27%

25%

8%

10%

15%

17%

19%

8%

4%

4%

6%

4%


The leadership of the CCG has the

necessary blend of skills and experience

There is clear and visible leadership of the

CCG

I have confidence in the leadership of the

CCG to deliver its plans and priorities

The leadership of the CCG is delivering

continued quality improvements

I have confidence in the leadership of the

CCG to deliver improved outcomes for

patients

Number

31 9 4 4

38 3 5 2

30 9 7 2

24 13 8 3

25 12 9 2


All stakeholders


94


statements about the overall leadership of the CCG…?

The leadership of the CCG has the necessary blend of skills and experience

All stakeholders



Stakeholder group Base Strongly / Tend

to agree

Strongly / Tend

to disagree




groups 3 100% (3) -% (0)


Other CCGs 5 80% (4) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)

Wider stakeholders 5 80% (4) -% (0) 65%

(31)


Tend to agree

64%

(27)


Tend to agree


Bexley CCG

27%

38%

19%

6% 2%

8% 13

18

9

3

1 4






95



There is clear and visible leadership of the CCG

All stakeholders




Tend to agree

Strongly / Tend

to disagree




groups 3 100% (3) -% (0)

NHS providers 5 100% (5) -% (0)

Other CCGs 5 80% (4) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)

Wider stakeholders 5 60% (3) -% (0) 79%

(38)

2014 Strongly agree

/ Tend to agree

79%

(33)

2012 Strongly agree

/ Tend to agree


Bexley CCG

35%

44%

6%

8% 2%

4%

17

21

3

4

1 2






96



I have confidence in the leadership of the CCG to deliver its plans and priorities

All stakeholders




Tend to agree

Strongly / Tend

to disagree




groups 3 67% (2) 33% (1)


Other CCGs 5 80% (4) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)



Bexley CCG

63%

(30)

2014 Strongly agree

/ Tend to agree

57%

(24)

2012 Strongly agree

/ Tend to agree

25%

38%

19%

10%

4% 4% 12

18

9

5

2 2






97



The leadership of the CCG is delivering continued quality improvements

All stakeholders




to agree

Strongly / Tend

to disagree




groups 3 67% (2) -% (0)

NHS providers 5 20% (1) 20% (1)

Other CCGs 5 80% (4) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)


Total responses : All stakeholders (2014: 48)

Bexley CCG

23%

27% 27%

10%

6% 6%

11

13 13

5

3

3






98




Bexley CCG

19%

33% 25%

10%

8% 4%

9

16 12

5

4 2




I have confidence in the leadership of the CCG to deliver improved outcomes for patients

All stakeholders




Tend to agree

Strongly / Tend

to disagree




groups 3 67% (2) -% (0)

NHS providers 5 40% (2) 20% (1)

Other CCGs 5 80% (4) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)




99


statements about the clinical leadership of the CCG?


Bexley CCG

71%

52%

50%

13%

29%

27%

15%

17%

19%

2%

2%

4%


There is clear and visible clinical leadership

of the CCG

I have confidence in the clinical leadership

of the CCG to deliver its plans and priorities

The clinical leadership of the CCG is

delivering continued quality improvements

Number

34 6 7 1

25 14 8 1

24 13 9 2


All stakeholders


100


statements about the clinical leadership of the CCG…?


Bexley CCG

29%

42%

13%

13% 2% 2%

14

20

6

6

1 1




There is clear and visible clinical leadership of the CCG

All stakeholders




Tend to agree

Strongly / Tend

to disagree




groups 3 100% (3) -% (0)

NHS providers 5 60% (3) 20% (1)

Other CCGs 5 100% (5) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)




101




Bexley CCG

I have confidence in the clinical leadership of the CCG to deliver its plans and priorities

All stakeholders




Tend to agree

Strongly / Tend

to disagree




groups 3 67% (2) -% (0)


Other CCGs 5 80% (4) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)



25%

27%

29%

13%

4%

2%

12

13

14

6

2 1





102




Bexley CCG

The clinical leadership of the CCG is delivering continued quality improvements

All stakeholders




to agree

Strongly / Tend

to disagree




groups 3 67% (2) -% (0)

NHS providers 5 40% (2) 20% (1)

Other CCGs 5 80% (4) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)



21%

29% 27%

17% 2%

4% 10

14 13

8

1 2





103

Domain 6: Summary

Base

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the overall

leadership of the CCG…?

A. The leadership of the CCG has the necessary blend of skills and experience

B. There is clear and visible leadership of the CCG

C. I have confidence in the leadership of the CCG to deliver its plans and priorities

D. The leadership of the CCG is delivering continued quality improvements

E. I have confidence in the leadership of the CCG to deliver improved outcomes for

patients

65% (31) strongly /

tend to agree


79% (38) strongly /

tend to agree

63% (30) strongly /

tend to agree

50% (24) strongly /

tend to agree

52% (25) strongly /

tend to agree

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the clinical


A. There is clear and visible clinical leadership of the CCG

B. I have confidence in the clinical leadership of the CCG to deliver its plans and

priorities

C. The clinical leadership of the CCG is delivering continued quality improvements

71% (34) strongly /

tend to agree


52% (25) strongly /

tend to agree

50% (24) strongly /

tend to agree



104


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Clear and visible leadership

There is clear and visible leadership of the CCG


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100



Skills and experience of leadership

The leadership of the CCG has the necessary blend of skills and experience








• The majority of stakeholders agree that there is

clear and visible leadership.


leadership of the CCG has the necessary blend

of skills and experience.


overall.


overall.



105


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Delivering continued quality improvements

The leadership of the CCG is delivering continued quality improvements


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100



Delivering plans and priorities

I have confidence in the leadership of the CCG to deliver its plans and priorities









leadership is delivering continued quality

improvements.

• The majority of stakeholders have confidence

in the leadership of the CCG to deliver its plans

and priorities.


overall.


overall.



106


• Around half of stakeholders have confidence in

the leadership of the CCG to deliver improved

outcomes.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100



Delivering improved outcomes

I have confidence in the leadership of the CCG to deliver improved outcomes for patients









107



0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Delivering continued quality improvements

I have confidence in the clinical leadership of the CCG to deliver its plans and priorities


0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the clinical leadership of

the CCG…?

Clear and visible clinical leadership

There is clear and visible clinical leadership of the CCG








• Around half of stakeholders are confident that

the clinical leadership will deliver its plans and

priorities.


clinical leadership of the CCG is clear and

visible.


overall.



108




clinical leadership of the CCG is delivering

continued quality improvements.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the clinical leadership of

the CCG…?

Delivering continuous improved outcomes

The clinical leadership of the CCG is delivering continued quality improvements

Percentage of stakeholders saying strongly agree/tend to agree







109

Bexley CCG’s local

questions


110

How would you rate the CCG on each of the following…?

25%

46%

10%

6% 2%

8% 2% 12

22

5

3

1

4 1

Very good Fairly goodNeither good nor poor Fairly poorVery poor Don't knowNot relevant

Leading the communications with stakeholders on the changes taking place at Queen Mary's Hospital





good

Very / Fairly

poor




groups 3 100% (3) -% (0)

NHS providers 5 60% (3) 20% (1)

Other CCGs 5 40% (2) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)



111


Engaging patients and residents in the changes to local healthcare services



15%

35%

10%

10%

8%

19%

2%

7

17

5

5

4

9

1




good

Very / Fairly

poor




groups 3 67% (2) 33% (1)

NHS providers 5 20% (1) 20% (1)

Other CCGs 5 40% (2) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)



112


Engaging local people and clinicians to develop the CCG’s priorities – also known as commissioning

intentions – for the years ahead


Bexley CCG


19%

44%

19%

8%

2% 6% 2%

9

21

9

4

1 3 1




good

Very / Fairly

poor




groups 3 100% (3) -% (0)


Other CCGs 5 80% (4) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)



113


Addressing concerns about the quality of local healthcare services provided by local NHS organisations



21%

44%

10%

8%

6%

8% 2% 10

21

5

4

3

4 1




good

Very / Fairly

poor




groups 3 100% (3) -% (0)


Other CCGs 5 60% (3) -% (0)


authorities 5 80% (4) -% (0)



114


Collaborating with our partners to improve health and social care across the borough


Bexley CCG


All stakeholders

29%

29%

19%

10%

2% 8% 2%

14

14

9

5

1

4 1




good

Very / Fairly

poor




groups 3 67% (2) 33% (1)

NHS providers 5 40% (2) 20% (1)

Other CCGs 5 80% (4) -% (0)


authorities 5 100% (5) -% (0)



115

Domain 6: Summary

Base

How would you rate the CCG on each of the following…? All stakeholders (48)

Leading the communications with stakeholders on the changes taking place at Queen Mary's

Hospital

71% (34) very good /

fairly good

Engaging patients and residents in the changes to local healthcare services 50% (24) very good /

fairly good

Engaging local people and clinicians to develop the CCG’s priorities – also known as

commissioning intentions – for the years ahead


fairly good

Addressing concerns about the quality of local healthcare services provided by local NHS

organisations


fairly good

Collaborating with our partners to improve health and social care across the borough 58% (28) very good /

fairly good



116

Version 1 | Internal Use Only

[email protected] | 020 7347 3000

© Ipsos MORI This work will be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the international quality standard for market research, ISO 20252:2006 and with the Ipsos MORI Terms and Conditions which can be found here

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/terms

governing body (public) meeting - nhs bexley ccg · the survey period ran from 12 march 2014 until...

Documents