Transcript Slide 1

To make recommendations to
NCAT Peer Review Team on the
recruitment, support and length
of appointment of User Peer
Reviewers
Team: Sian, Millie, Collin, Jaff &
Tim
Actions
• Survey current users
• Review current documentation
– NCPR Handbook
– Training slides/notes
User/Patient Reviewer person
specification
Experience “It is essential that user/patient
reviewer should have first hand experience of
cancer services
Recommend:
• Replacing MDT with Team being reviewed
•
Add Representing the voice of the cancer
patient
To section Knowledge, understanding and
reasonable commitment to:
Definition of role and purpose
• Role and purpose of the user/patient
reviewer is to use their experience,
knowledge and training to act as the voice
of cancer patients and carers, ensuring
that every patient is receiving the best and
most appropriate care, that there is
equality of treatment (both physical and
holistically) throughout the geographically
area being reviewed.
Survey Questions
• Remain on Database
• Approx no; of reviews undertaken (I/V &
E/V) over 2 years
• Support- received and would have liked
• Term of Office
• Current cancer involvement
• In your personal opinion, is it necessary
for a user reviewer to have a cancer
experience as a patient or carer?
Responses
•
•
•
•
228 sent
123 replies
14 asking to be removed from list
2 notifications of member passing away
(There are plans in place to phone non
respondents.)
Reviews done
• Total number of internal & external
reviews undertaken over the 2 year period
ranged for zero to 49
• External validations ranged from zero to
16
Reviewers per Network
• This ranges from several Networks with
only 1 reviewer to Greater Midlands
Cancer Network with 8.
• Total
North -29
Central -29
London -21
South -21
Based on 260 reviewing days this is 2.4 per
reviewer.
Current Cancer Involvement
4 people have no current cancer
involvement.
1 has done no reviews in the last two years
1 did not respond to the question
1 has done 7 (internal & external over 2yrs)
1has done 16 (internal & external over 2yrs)
Training/support received
• The feedback showed a large variation from
before training was introduced to 2 by 2 day
courses, 2 day course, 1.5 day course a
Macmillan course and a network run course.
• Positive comments regarding support received
from either or both local network and peer
review team.
• “the Review Team professionals were always
extremely helpful”
• “I feel I got the support I needed and still
continue to feel supported.”
Training/Support suggestions
• “more info on measures and copies of the
measure”
• “Possible shadowing a "buddy".
• “I was a little unsure that the questions I had
were relevant so a little more reassurance would
have been nice. Perhaps even on a user reps
first visit having 2 of them so they can support
each other. The other reviewers, even if it’s their
first time, have a much deeper understanding of
the process.”
• “A little more guidance on what to look at that is
not obvious in the measures”
Support
The general consensus of Users surveyed would
want training to include:
• Run through of paperwork, explaining
measurers and evidence required
• Practise session
• Timetable of a review day
• Buddy
• The current training meets these requirements
with the exceptions of a buddying scheme.
Term of Office
• N = 76
• Y=19 with anything from 2 – 10 years or “as long as fit
for purpose”
• ‘Term of office:’ Three is an arbitrary figure randomly
chosen with no scientific basis. I would suggest the term
only needs to be limited to allow a regular mutual review
of performance. If the reviewer has the necessary
appropriately informed, contemporaneous skills, is not
over burdened and wishes to continue then they should.
• “I do have patients/carers within my organisation who
would liked to become peer reviewers / internal
validators and hope that recruitment will commence to
enable people with fresher experiences to participate in
the future.”
Should a reviewer have experience
of cancer?
Yes- 80
N-15
“user/carer reviewers should have experience of cancer.
We expect that health professional reviewers work within
the cancer sector for their experience and knowledge.”
“Preconceived fears about cancer generally could have an
unnecessarily negative effect on reviews and processes
and a more realistic perspective will probably come from
those who have been through the “mill” and thus speak
from experience. Whilst they could be negative or
positive based on outcomes they will generally be a
more pragmatic response and less likely to be clouded
by a lack of knowledge”
Recommendations
• There should be a clear definition of a user
reviewers role and purpose.
• The person specification should include:Representing the voice of the cancer patient
and carer.
Number of user reviewers
• There are sufficient reviewers on the
current database.
• The list should be checked annually.
• User reviewers should have an experience
of cancer as either patient or carer.
Support recommendations
• We would recommend the introduction of a telephone
buddying system.
• Refresher training is considered.
• More support material is made available including, Easy
to read handouts with hints and tips on asking open
questions,etc., tips from experienced reviewers on how
to prepare efficiently
• That there is an Official ‘feedback ‘ system, with clearly
defined exit routes for reviewers whose performance is
considered of insufficient standard.
• Users expectations should be managed, including better
communication of changes, clear notice of likely number
of reviews required, notice when not selected for a
review, clear protocols when cancelling a review.
Term of Office
• A term of office is not required provided ‘users’
are fit for purpose.
• To be fit for service there should be a clearly
defined path to follow should a reviewers
performance be less than expected whereby
they are given the information and opportunity to
improve.
• It would also be recommended that a recent
cancer experience is not necessary provided the
reviewer is actively involved in cancer via
network, support, locality user group etc.,
Caveat
• that this is all based on current user peer
reviewers and the professional reviewers
should be surveyed.
• Costs associated could be considered for
a further piece of work
Questions