Dr Thoreya Swage

EVALUATION OF A PILOT LEADING TOGETHER PROGRAMME FOR PEOPLE

WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES FOR OXFORD ACADEMIC HEALTH SCIENCE

NETWORK, NHS ENGLAND AND THAMES VALLEY AND WESSEX LEADERSHIP

ACADEMY

Dr Thoreya Swage

December 2018

2 Dr Thoreya Swage

EVALUATION OF A PILOT LEADING TOGETHER PROGRAMME FOR PEOPLE WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES FOR OXFORD ACADEMIC HEALTH SCIENCE NETWORK, NHS ENGLAND AND THAMES VALLEY AND WESSEX LEADERSHIP ACADEMY

CONTENTS Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

INTRODUCTION 6

METHODOLOGY 6

FINDINGS 7

CONCLUSIONS 15

RECOMMENDATIONS 16

SEMI - STRUCTURED INTERVIEW AND FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS Appendix A 18

LIST OF INTERVIEWEES Appendix B 19

IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Appendix C 20

3 Dr Thoreya Swage

EVALUATION OF A PILOT LEADING TOGETHER PROGRAMME FOR PEOPLE WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES FOR OXFORD ACADEMIC HEALTH SCIENCE NETWORK, NHS ENGLAND AND THAMES VALLEY AND WESSEX LEADERSHIP ACADEMY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This is an evaluation of the effectiveness of a pilot Leading Together Programme for People with Learning Disabilities for Oxford Academic Health Science Network (OAHSN), NHS England and Thames Valley and Wessex Leadership Academy on its participants. The pilot programme, which aimed to develop a methodology for the co-production of services for people with learning disabilities, was set up and run during 2018. The evaluation consisted of observations and reflections from three whole day workshops run in June, July and September 2018 and a 'Celebrating Success' half day in November 2018. In addition, in-depth semi-structured face-to-face and telephone interviews with the participants of the pilot programme, as well as with the provider and commissioners of the course, were conducted to ascertain individual feedback. Reflections from focus groups comprising the My Life My Choice (MLMC) consultants were also obtained as part of the feedback. Overall feedback Overall the participants found the programme enjoyable and commented that they had learned much about where people were coming from, whether as a service user or professional. The resource book was considered to be of high quality and the activities such as coaching were viewed as helpful in the development of relationships and improvement projects within the groups. Areas where the programme could improve included a better balance between the use of time in the workshops to build relationships, listening and working through the key leadership processes through to the use of the resource book and facilitation of the improvement project groups. Key points arising from this evaluation include: The programme itself: • Professionals and people with learning disabilities treating each other equally with an

understanding of the external constraints on professionals and recognising how much can be achieved through working with people with learning disabilities

• The opportunity to have protected time for professionals and MLMC consultants to work together and to improve their skills in co-production was valued

4 Dr Thoreya Swage

• The importance of taking time for the participants to get to know each other at the beginning, building up relationships and getting a sense of the problems that each other are wanting to solve. The use of the green and red cards facilitated the discussions.

• The importance of all parties to commit to the whole programme and clearer communication amongst the participants between the workshops was highlighted

• The resource book was of high quality but could be modified by removing much of the background material

• Ensuring greater support or facilitation to develop the improvement projects • The programme, with modifications, would be a useful process for other teams to go

through • Four improvement projects were identified and development work commenced as part

of the programme Management of the programme: • The spacing of workshops and project meetings should be reviewed to permit time to

develop the improvement projects and not to lose momentum. Workshop dates once agreed should not have been changed

• The interviewing process to appoint people to participate on the programme ensured that this was taken seriously.

• There needed to be closer oversight of the steering group to monitor progress and to take action when things go wrong sooner. Clarity on who was in charge of the project was not always present

• It was noted that greater input of social services (not just one participant) would have been helpful in the development of the improvement projects as well as the involvement of family or carers of people with profound learning disabilities

• Basing the programme within one organisation, i.e. Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust working closely with social services and My Life My Choice colleagues facilitated the co-production process with tangible results

Recommendations 1. The structure of the programme should be modified to ensure that: • there is enough time for participants to build relationships and understand each others'

perspectives and wider issues . • there is adequate facilitation to support the development of the improvements projects • more time is spent within the workshops developing the improvement projects • there is clarity on arranging meetings of the project groups between the workshops • there should be clearer oversight and monitoring of the progress of the programme • there is modification of the resource material to allow more time for discussion 2. The programme itself: • should be offered to other senior leaders within health and social care

5 Dr Thoreya Swage

• should be developed to become part of business as usual within health and social care organisations possibly within the context of the Sustainability and Transformation Partnership

• could be used in other areas of health and social care such as diabetes and other conditions

3. With respect to the programme participants: • it is important to obtain the commitment of all involved in the programme • there should be more participation from social services and carers or families of people

with a profound learning disability

4. Scheduling a review on the progress and outcomes of the improvement projects six months after the end of this programme

6 Dr Thoreya Swage

INTRODUCTION

This is an evaluation of the effectiveness of a pilot Leading Together Programme for People with Learning Disabilities for Oxford Academic Health Science Network (AHSN), NHS England and Thames Valley and Wessex Leadership Academy on its participants.

The pilot programme, which aimed to develop a methodology for the co-production of services for people with learning disabilities, was set up and run during 2018. The programme was co-designed and co-developed by The Performance Coach (TPC) in conjunction with My Life My Choice (MLMC) - an Oxfordshire based charity that advocates for people with learning disabilities.

The Patient Experience Strategy Oversight Group provided advice and oversight to the programme guided by the 'No decision about me without me' strategy whilst the Leading Together Programme (LTP) Learning Disabilities Advisory Group provided advice on adapting the Leading Together Programme for the benefit of people with learning disabilities. A core management team was responsible and accountable for the delivery of the programme. METHODOLOGY The evaluation consisted of observations and reflections from three whole day workshops run in June, July and September 2018 and a 'Celebrating Success' half day in November 2018. In addition, in-depth semi-structured telephone interviews with the participants of the pilot programme, as well as with the provider and commissioners of the course, were conducted to ascertain individual feedback. Reflections and feedback from focus groups comprising of consultants from My Life My Choice, were also conducted as part of the evaluative process. The workshops The workshops were interactive day long sessions which aimed to enable the participants to understand the principles of learning together, co-production and identifying and implementing projects to improve local health and social care services. The workshops were held in June, July and September 2018. Between the workshop participants were expected to continue the conversations within each identified project team to develop the projects further. ‘Celebrating Success’ The ‘Celebrating Success’ Event was a half day gathering in November 2018 to present the projects and highlight lessons learned from the process.

7 Dr Thoreya Swage

The semi-structured questionnaire The areas covered in the evaluation included:

• the objectives of participants for the programme • whether these identified objectives were achieved • aspects of the programme that were particularly helpful or went well • aspects of the programme that did not go so well or were not useful • areas where the programme could be improved • the learning gained from the programme • comments on the structure, form, content or resources book • other comments

The questions used in this evaluation are in Appendix A. All the information collected via the semi-structured interviews and focus groups was received and treated with confidence and no individual is identified in this report. The individuals interviewed are listed in Appendix B. The evaluation was undertaken between June 2018 to November 2018. The outcome of this piece of work is a report summarising the findings of the:

• observations of the three workshops and 'Celebrating Success' event • semi structured telephone and face-to-face interviews • focus groups

FINDINGS

In total eight professionals and six people with learning disabilities were identified for the evaluation including those from Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxfordshire County Council, My Life My Choice as well as from The Performance Coach (who facilitated the programme) and Oxford Academic Health Science Network. Overall feedback Overall the participants found the programme enjoyable and commented that they had learned much about where people were coming from, whether as a service user or professional. The resource book was considered to be of high quality and the activities such as coaching were viewed as helpful in the development of relationships and improvement projects within the groups. Areas where the programme could improve included a better balance between the use of time in the workshops to build relationships, listening and working through the key

8 Dr Thoreya Swage

leadership processes through to the use of the resource book and facilitation of the improvement project groups. Observations and reflections from the three workshops i) Workshop one During this workshop the aims of the Leading Together Programme were explained. The experiences of participants ( see box below) and personal goals for the programme were shared. Rules of engagement were set, for example, through the use of laminated red and green cards indicating whether a speaker wished to say something; no jargon to be used; behaving with mutual respect, honesty, kindness and confidentiality; asking if things were not clear and having fun. Participants were directed to the use of a reflective diary and a comprehensive resource guide provided structure to the discussions. Some experiences as related by participants • One participant experienced knee and leg pain but did not want analgesia. Following

discussion with the GP physiotherapy was organised for the participant at home which resulted in better pain management

• A participant complained of a rash on their back. Cream was prescribed for this but the condition worsened. A second opinion was sought from another GP who then diagnosed shingles

• A participant who was not keen on having dental treatment had a discussion with their dentist on how to deal with this. It was agreed that the dentist would numb the gums prior to using an injection for local anaesthesia and for the participant to count up to 5, stop, and repeat this to prevent a panic attack

It was clear that, when compared with previous Leading Together Programmes, this approach followed a developmental route. To begin there was discussion and agreement on how to work together using a co-production technique. Once participants began to feel more comfortable about working together, later during the day consideration was given as to what themes the projects could be and how to work in smaller groups, e.g. pairs (one healthcare professional and one consultant from My Life My Choice). There was agreement to share email addresses in order to the continue discussions that had been initiated during the day. ii) Workshop two Workshop two focussed on having better conversations, coaching and identifying the projects to be worked on. A session on reflection on the first workshop was conducted prior to starting on the work of the day. Overall, participants felt ‘energised’ and enjoyed the previous day. Comments

9 Dr Thoreya Swage

included ‘it was good to get to know each other’ and to ’step outside of my comfort zone’. There were a couple of comments that ‘a lot of information’ was imparted in workshop one. The healthcare professionals recognised the importance of engaging services users, having a better understanding of each others’ perspectives and were thinking about how to work in different ways with service users (‘really to talk’ and not to ignore their views) Concerns were expressed over whether the projects would be finished after workshop three as the initial momentum generated after workshop one with the sharing of emails seemed to have faded and there was a gap over the summer between workshop two and the final day. Most of the day concentrated on how to identify the possible projects to be worked on. Participants were asked to identify the passions driving them on improving the quality of services. A consistent theme was how to involve service users, accessing information from various sources, empowerment of service users (e.g. a therapeutic community in which peer support could be provided through an out-of-hours telephone helpline) and the sustainability of services in the context of ‘cuts’ that are occurring within social care and the concomitant feeling of being ‘let down’. As a result, four project ideas were identified which were: • Input to the opening of a new low secure unit, for example developing a quality

inspection checklist for service users and other input to the project team that is setting up the unit

• Peer support / ‘half way house’ for people post discharge – possibly starting with a survey of service users and professionals

• Information on services - Investigation of current websites • Housing –information on accommodation and social support The workshop ended with a commitment to continue the dialogue and develop the project ideas further. iii) Workshop three The third workshop took place two months after the second one following the summer break. Attendance was reduced as three healthcare professionals were not present. The reflection following workshop two was positive with meetings having been held to move the projects forward. There was a feeling of energy, with one consultant from My Life My Choice highlighting that another colleague had been enabled to speak up. There were comments that peer coaching had been helpful, new things ‘had been learnt’ and the effectiveness of sharing ideas and personal experiences. With regard to the projects: • The low secure unit – three meetings had taken place which had focussed on the

inspection tool and developing a training package for staff and patient mentoring using the experiences of the My Life My Choice consultant involved

10 Dr Thoreya Swage

• The Housing project – one meeting had been held and currently research was underway to find out more information on what was available

• Peer support – there had been three meetings and there were plans to set up a support group for people with learning disabilities who had depression

• Information on services – this had not progressed since workshop two. No meetings had taken place

The final improvement project briefs are detailed in Appendix C

During the workshop a discussion was conducted away from the main group to tackle the issue of the project that had not progressed well. The outcome of this was an agreement for the My Life My Choice consultant who was participating in the stalled project to join the low secure unit project. Personal reflections These reflections were obtained through semi-structured telephone and face-to-face interviews with the participants and facilitator of the workshop (from The Performance Coach) plus the Director of Patient and Public Experience at the Oxford Academic Health Science Network. The My Life My Choice consultants provided feedback via focus groups facilitated by support staff from the charity. Objectives for the programme Participants identified a number of personal objectives for the programme including: • having protected time for both professionals and people with learning disabilities to

work together as equals 'in the same room'. • wanting to improve skills in co-production and to learn how to work together with

service users • understanding more about decision-making with people with learning disabilities,

finding different ways of working and understanding the impact of decisions being made on others' behalf.

• wanting to develop the leadership aspect of their role and understand wider system working

• having an opportunity to make friends, and have advisors and confidants • having an opportunity to network and to work with people with learning disabilities and

across organisations For those setting up and running the programme the objectives were to design a programme of co-production with people with learning disabilities and professionals using the learning from previous co-production programmes and adapting the approach for this group of people. All of the participants commented that their objectives were achieved and much more, for example there was a better understanding of where the professionals and My Life My

11 Dr Thoreya Swage

Choice consultants came from and a mutual respect that all were busy but had given their time to do this work. One commented that they had more skills than they realised, the person-centred methodology suited them and helped them to transition to their new role as Patient Experience Lead. Another had learned how to set up a task group and to implement ideas, while a third reflected that the programme gave them an opportunity to consider how to make decisions differently as learning disability services were new to them.

Aspects of the programme that were particularly helpful or went well

Generally participants found the programme enjoyable, positive and enriching. It was helpful to have an opportunity to find shared goals and work on them together with tangible projects.

There was great respect as to what people with learning disabilities could do (more than they had previously anticipated) . The My Life My Choice consultants had clear ideas and looked out for each other when one of them was having difficulty in articulating their thoughts. Both My Life My Choice consultants and professionals appreciated the mix of people in the room.

The coaching session was considered to be helpful by one participant who, as a result, realised that people with learning disabilities could pick up on issues quickly. Another comment that My Life My Choice consultants made was the usefulness of identifying leadership qualities through the use of drawing and writing ideas on a flip chart that all could contribute to.

The use of the green and red cards facilitated discussion within the workshops.

One participant commented on the dynamics of the relationships. At first there was awkwardness (more by the professionals than the My Life My Choice consultants) and people were not sure how to behave at the beginning. However over time, strong bonds were developed and relationships became more confident. Another commented that having spent that time in getting to know each other there was a feeling that support was available to the one My Life My Choice consultant who experienced a setback in the progress of their project.

It was considered by those setting up and running the programme that the interview process to engage people for the workshops was helpful in obtaining commitment. There were senior people on the programme and despite some communication issues everyone was interested, listened and were flexible throughout. There was good support from the My Life My Choice support worker who ran focus groups in between the workshops to obtain feedback from the consultants.

12 Dr Thoreya Swage

The easy read approach kept the pace sharp and as simple as possible. The programme steering group was helpful in stepping in when one project ran into difficulty.

Aspects of the programme that did not go so well or were not useful

There was a general feeling that more time could have been spent on getting to know people (e.g. sharing biographies), identifying the developing the projects and possibly less use of the workbook.

Comments included not having enough time to get a sense of where the professionals and the My Life My Choice consultants were coming from in terms of the issues that they were both facing, the difficulties of finding the right topic for the projects, a lack of clarity of what people should be doing outside of the workshops and the variable attendance by the professionals at the workshops and the meetings in between owing to miscommunication.

The My Life My Choice consultants commented that there needed to be an awareness of the amount of information that needed to be processed as it did feel a little overwhelming. They suggested that more time should be given to allow people to process at their own pace as some people felt that it was too much to take in.

There was also a comment that there was a loss of momentum between workshops two and three with the summer break although another felt that more space between workshops would have been beneficial in order to have time to develop the improvement projects.

It was noticed that there was no input from families or carers of people with learning disabilities and that social services representation could have been greater.

In terms of organising the programme there was variation in the engagement with Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust which required much input to get the programme running. Another comment was the need to have greater clarity on the roles within the steering group.

The changing of the original dates made it challenging for a couple of participants who had clashing commitments. This led to consequences for one project with one participant feeling let down.

Areas where the programme could be improved

Suggestions on how the programme could be improved included having a greater focus on getting to know each other and identifying and beginning the work on the projects in workshop one. This could be kicked started by the professionals and the My Life My Choice consultants presenting problems that each would like to solve to see what could be in the projects.

Greater clarity on the process of developing the projects would have helped ,e.g. simple actions such as agreeing dates to meet following the workshop whilst together at the

13 Dr Thoreya Swage

workshop and more facilitation to support the development of projects outside of the workshops.

On managing the programme there was a comment that closer monitoring by the steering group while it was running could have picked up the issues earlier and not to have left the reflections after the final workshop to the programme facilitator, My Life My Choice consultant and Power Up Co-ordinator. It would have been helpful to know who was in charge of the programme to carry out the actions required, etc.

More time and support should be dedicated to allowing the My Life My Choice consultants to assimilate information presented and discussed. There was also a question as to how the personal development of chair of the programme could be improved.

There were comments about having greater representation from social services and families or carers of people with profound learning disabilities.

The learning gained from the programme

There were many comments from individuals about their learning principally about their previous perceptions about what working with people with learning disabilities could manage, although the My Life My Choice consultants were well aware that they could achieve a great deal.

Lessons reported by professionals included change in view as to what working with people with learning disabilities could achieve. For example, experiencing the power of co-production and relationship building which encouraged a supportive, honest and open environment which in turn, was conducive to problem solving; and having an open mind and not to pre-judge in advance. There was a better understanding as how people with learning disabilities are able to communicate and individuals learned to adapt their way of speaking and change their use of language e.g. use of acronyms and in writing.

There was admiration for how engaged the My Life My Choice consultants are within their community and networks and a better understanding as to how they could make a difference to services.

However, not having an understanding of the impact of certain behaviours left one My Life My Choice consultant feeling isolated, for example when two professionals could not attend the final workshop to continue the work on the joint project. There was an admission that this had not been thought through. On reflection the importance of better communication was identified as a lesson learned and perhaps a conference call could have been organised close to the workshop to make up for the absence of the professionals on the day.

For the My Life My Choice consultants there was a better appreciation of the constraints on health and social care services.

14 Dr Thoreya Swage

There was a recognition that ideas could change over time during project development and that these needed to be realistic about how these would translate to the real world.

One participant commented that this programme had been a journey for them as they had little previous experience in this area and felt frustrated when things began to go wrong. However, following a discussion with the Performance Coach Facilitator they were persuaded to continue once they had realised how far they had come. For example, the participant did not realise what knowledge and resources were available within different organisations in the same area of work. They also went back to their organisation after each session and highlighted to colleagues about information gathered, and discussions that had taken place. This stimulated questions about what was happening within the organisation and has improved communication channels with partner organisations.

The organisers of the programme observed that better outcomes were achieved as the leading together programme was embedded within an organisation, e.g. encouraging a health trust to work closely with the local social services as well as My Life My Choice.

Comments on the structure, form, content and resources book

It was considered that better use could be made of the time spent in the workshops, for example having more time to build up a rapport, starting the projects earlier in the programme as people were already together, and less focus on the information presented.

There were some comments that the workshops themselves were intense for both professionals and My Life My Choice consultants and perhaps could benefit from being shorter and more frequent in timing.

There was variable use of the reflective diary and a reflection was conducted at the beginning of workshops two and three to hear peoples' thoughts on previous days. One participant commented that it would have been would have been helpful to have agreement for use of a video to record key events, e.g. the second workshop was on the 70th anniversary of the NHS and to celebrate a participant's birthday.

One participant thought that the resource material was of high quality and had plans to use this within their organisation. Another reported that working with the Performance Coach made the process easier to digest and encouraged openness. Despite the previous comments it was also recognised that much of the material could have been left out and the format was too prescriptive.

Other comments

Overall there was a consensus that the programme was delivered successfully despite the challenges that arose with the development of one project. Everyone was positive - 'we have been ourselves'- and were keen to work together. There were comments that the

15 Dr Thoreya Swage

programme was an eye opener and that it was good to work with service users and to meet new people.

One participant expressed a desire for the whole of their senior management team to go through the programme (following some modifications such as more facilitation of the project groups, greater space between workshops, the projects leading to real improvements and evaluation as the programmes progressed). Another commented that this process should be embedded in business as usual as part of normal service management and not as a separate task.

On reflection, one individual commented that this process could be used in other areas of health and social care such as diabetes and other conditions and another considered that it was good to have the evaluation embedded from the beginning of the programme.

Although the celebration event showcased the improvement projects and the learning there was a suggestion that it would be helpful for all the participants to meet together following the end of the programme three to six months down the line to review progress.

CONCLUSIONS Overall the experience was positive with all participants wanting to work together on identifying and developing improvement projects. Key points arising from this evaluation include: The programme itself: • Professionals and people with learning disabilities treating each other equally with an

understanding of the external constraints on professionals and recognising how much can be achieved through working with people with learning disabilities

• The opportunity to have protected time for professionals and MLMC consultants to work together and to improve their skills in co-production was valued

• The importance of taking time for the participants to get to know each other at the beginning, building up relationships and getting a sense of the problems that each other are wanting to solve. The use of the green and red cards facilitated the discussions.

• The importance of all parties to commit to the whole programme and clearer communication amongst the participants between the workshops was highlighted

• The resource book was of high quality but could be modified by removing much of the background material

• Ensuring greater support or facilitation to develop the improvement projects • The programme, with modifications, would be a useful process for other teams to go

through • Four improvement projects were identified and development work commenced as part

of the programme

16 Dr Thoreya Swage

Management of the programme: • The spacing of workshops and project meetings should be reviewed to permit time to

develop the improvement projects and not to lose momentum. Workshop dates once agreed should not have been changed

• The interviewing process to appoint people to participate on the programme ensured that this was taken seriously.

• There needed to be closer oversight of the steering group to monitor progress and to take action when things go wrong sooner. Clarity on who was in charge of the project was not always present

• It was noted that greater input of social services (not just one participant) would have been helpful in the development of the improvement projects as well as the involvement of family or carers of people with profound learning disabilities

• Basing the programme within one organisation, i.e. Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust working closely with social services and My Life My Choice colleagues facilitated the co-production process with tangible results

RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The structure of the programme should be modified to ensure that: • there is enough time for participants to build relationships and understand each others'

perspectives and wider issues . • there is adequate facilitation to support the development of the improvements projects • more time is spent within the workshops developing the improvement projects • there is clarity on arranging meetings of the project groups between the workshops • there should be clearer oversight and monitoring of the progress of the programme • there is modification of the resource material to allow more time for discussion 2. The programme itself: • should be offered to other senior leaders within health and social care • should be developed to become part of business as usual within health and social care

organisations possibly within the context of the Sustainability and Transformation Partnership

• could be used in other areas of health and social care such as diabetes and other conditions

3. With respect to the programme participants: • it is important to obtain the commitment of all involved in the programme • there should be more participation from social services and carers or families of people

with a profound learning disability

17 Dr Thoreya Swage

4. Scheduling a review on the progress and outcomes of the improvement projects six months after the end of this programme

18 Dr Thoreya Swage

Appendix A Semi-structured Interview Questions - Professionals

1. Name (including contact details)

2. Role

3. Organisation 5. What were your objectives for this programme? 6. Did you achieve them? 7. What went well/ was useful ? 8. What did not go so well/ not so useful? 9. What have you learned from this process? 10. Any comments on the structure, form, content, resource book? 11.Could the programme be improved? How? 12. Any other comments?

Focus Group Questions – My Life My Choice Consultants

1. What did you want to get out of the process?

2. What went well?

3. What did not go so well?

4. How could the process be improved?

5. Any other comments - e.g. on the workshops, resources guide, who attended the workshop etc

19 Dr Thoreya Swage

Appendix B LIST OF INTERVIEWEES

Name Role Organisation Dominic Hardisty Chief Operating Officer and

Deputy Chief Executive Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust

Kerry Rogers Director of Corporate Affairs and Company Secretary

Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust

Rachel Miller Service User Involvement Lead for LD and Forensic Services

Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust

Shiva Marjani

Doctor - Registrar Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust (now Hertfordshire Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust)

Karen Fuller

Deputy Director Oxfordshire County Council

Jess Tilling Power Up Coordinator My Life My Choice

Julia Brown

Facilitator The Performance Coach

Siân Rees Director, Patient & Public Involvement, Engagement & Experience

Oxford Academic Health Science Network

MY LIFE MY CHOICE CONSULTANTS Dawn, Sean, Gina, Pam, Katie, Ben

20 Dr Thoreya Swage

Appendix C

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS DEVELOPED BY THE PROGRAMME

Project one

Project title: To ensure that people with learning disabilities are involved in planning and checking the quality of care provided at the new low secure unit that is being built.

Aims:

1) To develop a quality checking tool which experts by experience could use to check the new unit

2) To develop staff training based on lived experience 3) To develop materials and opportunity for people with lived experience to act as

mentors for patients in the new unit to help them transition back into the community.

Project two

Project title: To develop a social happiness survey for people with learning disabilities to provide information on the different possible options available for support

Aims:

1) To develop the questionnaire on SurveyMonkey 2) To send the survey out to people with learning disabilities in Oxfordshire,

Buckinghamshire and Berkshire via local organisations which support people with learning disabilities

3) To analyse the data received from the responses to the survey 4) To write up and publish the results

Project three

Project title: To collate and assess the knowledge and information for people with learning disabilities within Oxfordshire

Aims:

1) To review the websites that provide information for people with learning disabilities across health and social care

2) To identify the gaps in knowledge and explore ways in which to bridge these. 3) To explore how the different websites containing this information could be linked

together

21 Dr Thoreya Swage

Project four

Project title: To set up a peer support service for people who fall below the threshold / have a learning disability with a borderline mental health condition.

Aims:

1) To identify the gaps in services for people who do not meet the criteria threshold of learning disability / mental health condition

2) To develop the idea of 'tele-peer' to support people in the group 3) To run a focus group to develop the idea further

This is now part of a wider piece of work across health and social care with NHS England and NHS Improvement for improving services for people with mental health conditions