Skip to main content

PCX

Hello Mandy. That's a very welcome comment on User Uninvolvement and I think your suggestions at the end are excellent. And like an ancient grandfather clock, my pendulum still ponderously ticks between mad and non-mad, sometimes making an unexpected stop in the middle where time has no sense anyway.

But, I don't know if you've already come across it (should I rephrase that?) - the PCX (shorthand for Patient Citizen Exchange) website (to get it, click on the title of this blog) is a chance for those suggestions of yours to contribute to the suits absorbing a little sense.

PCX's parent is the NHS Centre for Involvement - the name now for the 'Centre for Excellence/PPI Resource Centre' which emerged gradually out of the fog of the John Reid arms length body review a couple of years ago and the idea of which was taken on board by the PPI Expert Panel whose recommendations the fragrant Patricia enshrined in prospective law.

PCX is currently touting a questionnaire amongst its members which asks what training now and for the future is needed for patient and public involvement. The survey is, unfortunately, angled towards those working for an organisation (employed or voluntary) but it's completable (a neologism - sign of schizophrenia - someone is bound to diagnose me! See, paranoia too) by users not attached to an organisation.

The point is that, although PCX is a government sponsored organisation and probably run by academics and civil servants, it is asking for the views of users and, providing views are expressed within their guidelines of acceptability, it is an great opportunity for users to convey their views, ideas and feeling to a very pertinent audience. With this in mind too, I'm starting another (PCX) blog on there.

I think your comments and knowledge aired there would be hugely valuable.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

SURVIVOR HISTORY NEWSLETTER

>From Andrew Roberts Secretary Survivors History Group http://studymore.org.uk/ studymore@studymore.org.uk telephone: 020 8 986 5251 home address: 177 Glenarm Road, London, E5 ONB Survivor History Group Summer 2012 Newsletter The July London meeting of the Survivors History Group will be held on Wednesday 25.7.2012 from 1pm to 5pm at Together, 12 Old Street, London. Everybody is welcome and refreshments will be provided. The September meeting has had to be moved from a Wednesday to Thursday 27.9.2012 (subject to approval by this Wednesday's meeting) because of the availability of a room at Together.   -------------------------------------------------------------------- The agenda for the July meeting will be drawn up at the beginning of the meeting, but it will include Peter Campbell's regular report back on the research he is leading on the history of Survivors Speak Out and discussion of material received from other people about Survivors Speak Out.  Rick Hennelly has se...
Post a Comment
Read more

The DLA and Workfare Scandals.

This ConDem Coalition is exploiting the apparent helplessness of disabled people by taking essential money away from them and forcing vulnerable people, for example, people with mental health difficulties. I remember, when I was a practising social worker, the horror experienced by service users when they received a letter summoning them to undergo a medical examination (25 miles away in Norwich). Some became absolutely terrified at the prospect and the stress of having to get to and face the appointment led to one or two relapses and hospital admissions. Against local authority policy, I always took them to the appointment, went in with them and supported them through the interview acting as advocate. The doctors at these reviews were employed by the Benefits Agency and usually retired from practice. They were also usually empathic with the service user and mostly helped to reduce the terror of the interview. The new 'Workfare' reviews which every DLA claimant will have to und...
2 comments
Read more

Mental Health Labels?

I read this valuable little report yesterday. It presents issues and dichotomies around disability labels, models of disability and rejections of the disability label by mental health service users/survivors. The report makes positive recommendations about furthering the debate but, in my opinion, the user contributions muddy rather than clarify matters. The subjects are seminal to the work being carried out to integrate physically, sensory, mental health and intellectual disabilities - essential if we are to progress further in our strivings for human and statutory rights. For me, the report is enormously helpful in providing a foundation for discussions of what are important questions and perhaps, if properly distributed, it could bring a better focus towards some resolution. Heddwch. Mike.
Post a Comment
Read more