Skip to main content

South Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group

In July of this year, I made a complaint to the South Norfolk CCG that they had a "prospectus" for 2013/14 with no mention of mental health, let alone a mention of 'parity of esteem between mental health and physical health."

I didn't get an acknowledgement but after several promptings and a threat to take the issue to the Ombudsman, I finally received a letter of response at the end of last month (October). That response, although mentioning several strands of mental health, was not satisfactory as it said nothing about 'parity of esteem.'

As it happened however, There was a SNCCG board meeting on 5th November, so I went.

I was surprised how positive this meeting was with the board showing tacit resistance to competition for commissioned services. Mental subject of health services was talked about but only in terms of the two elements in their 2013 - on strategy, IAPT (Increased access to psychological therapy) and dementia. In addition, when I challenged them about the subject of my letter, there was a general acceptance of the principle of 'parity of esteem.'

It was obvious the board was still at its forming stage (very slow evolution here - what do you expect - this is Norfolk!) and the recent additions to its membership were two representatives of community engagement, one Oliver Cruickshank who is the Engagement Lead
and who is keen to increase public involvement in CCG processes. The upshot was that the chair of the board and those two aforementioned representatives were interested in my involvement and so my details were taken.

We will see what, if anything develops from this and anyway, I'll certainly be keeping an eye on things.

Sadly, my colleague, Susan who has been running the 38 degrees group, expressed the opinion that we no longer had 'a group' so I'll send a copy of this write-up to them as well as Ed Davie of NSUN.

Comments

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...

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...

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.