Board review of the Patient Experience Committee (PEC) • For

Item 7
Board review of the Patient Experience Committee (PEC)
Produced and presented by:
Ian Tombleson, Director of Corporate Governance
Board of Directors Meeting
24 April 2014
Action:

For information

For consideration

For decision

1
Board review of the Patient Experience Committee (PEC)
1.
Background
The terms of reference for this review were agreed at the October Board and are attached in the
Appendix.
A small group consisting of Rudy Markham, Phil Luthert (chairman of the Quality and Safety
Committee) and Ian Tombleson have engaged with members of the PEC to explore views about
further support to the PEC and potential improvements to the way it functions. This also included any
impacts on the Quality and Safety Committee.
Those consulted during the review were:






Tracy Luckett, Chair of the PEC.
Paul Murphy, Public Governor.
Andrew Nebel, Non-Executive Director.
Sumita Sinha, Non-Executive Director.
Tim Withers, Head of Patient Experience.
The Management Executive.
2.
Key observations
2.1 Current brief of the Patient Experience Committee
The current brief of the PEC is very broad including:







Strategic development of the patient experience agenda.
Data and information analysis, review and consideration of trends.
Learning and improvement.
Overall management of patient experience action plans, including those relating to the
directorates.
Obtaining patient views through direct participation in the PEC.
Oversight and scrutiny on behalf of the Board by the Non-Executive Directors.
Governor insights, perspective and challenge.
2.2 Views about the functions of the PEC
The following points were raised about the way the PEC functions:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
There was a high level of respect for the work that has been done to date.
The PEC is simultaneously trying to perform both management and oversight and scrutiny
functions, which creates competing tensions and makes it difficult to focus on either;
therefore there is minimal time to focus on strategic development.
The remit of the PEC is too broad and therefore it has insufficient time to cover any part of
its remit in adequate detail.
The PEC’s membership is too large and attendance can be variable.
2
v)
vi)
vii)
viii)
ix)
The PEC is trying to be both the patient experience organisational champion and manage
the detailed implementation of the actions required to take forward and improve the
patient experience and this creates competing priorities that are very difficult to balance.
The boundaries between the actions owned by the PEC and those owned by the
directorates are sometimes unclear and from this other issues arise, for example a lack of
clarity about accountability.
Patient participation is very helpful.
The PEC needs at all times to remain grounded in what is happening in clinics and what
patients are actually experiencing.
The Quality and Safety Committee needs more dedicated time to provide sufficient
scrutiny of the patient experience.
2.3 Summary of views
There was consensus that the PEC has an essential and important role in the organisation and there is
much work to be done. However the PEC’s current remit is very broad and it needs to be narrowed
and more focussed. There was also consensus that the PEC should remain a management committee
and not become a Board committee. The Board already has a number of committees and the
emphasis of the work of the PEC is management led and delivered. There was also consensus that the
PEC needs to clearly separate out its current management and oversight and scrutiny functions
between it and the Quality and Safety Committee.
3.
Proposal
1. The PEC should remain a management committee but its role and membership should be
strengthened. It will continue to be Executive led by Tracy Luckett, but its focus will become
more strategic.
2. The PEC will champion the patient experience at an organisational level and set the vision and
agenda.
3. The PEC will be data and information driven, both quantitative and qualitative.
4. The PEC will focus on the delivery of the Quality and Safety Plan, and driving improvements in
the patient experience at an organisational level and how that will be achieved. More detailed
actions will be led and delivered by the directorates and will be monitored at a directorate
level. Mary Sherry will act as the direct link to the directorates and progress with actions will
be monitored by them.
5. The PEC will test the reality of the effectiveness of improvements by continuing to have
patient membership and input from the matrons.
6. The PEC will have a smaller and more focussed membership, including:







Tracy Luckett
Mary Sherry
Senior medical input
Two Matrons
Patient representation
Tim Withers
One representative from each directorate.
Non-Executive Directors and Governors will no longer be members.
3
7. The PEC will meet quarterly as opposed to the current six weekly.
8. Board level oversight and scrutiny will be strengthened and will continue to be led by the
Quality and Safety Committee which will have one meeting per year dedicated to the patient
experience (bringing its total number of meetings to six per year). Other oversight and
scrutiny will take place as and when necessary by the Quality and Safety Committee.
9. The Quality and Safety Committee will reconsider its membership following this review.
4.
Recommendation to the Trust Board
The Board is invited to agree this proposal and for it to commence immediately following agreement.
Tracy Luckett
Ian Tombleson
4
Appendix
Board review of the Patient Experience Committee
The Patient Experience Committee (PEC) has been leading the patient experience agenda for over
four years on behalf of the Management Executive. It is a highly valued committee and much has
been done towards improving the patient experience at Moorfields. For example it is notable that the
majority of staff are seen to be courteous and polite to staff and improvements in waiting times have
been achieved in some clinics.
However there are a number of indications that the PEC’s performance could be enhanced further:

The committee has reviewed its terms of reference recently and Tracy Luckett, the
committee’s chair, has observed there is some overlap between the management and
overview and scrutiny functions which might be impairing progress.

During the year the Board has observed that although progress has been made in relation to
the patient experience agenda, substantial challenges still remain and further improvement is
required.

The Membership Council has expressed on-going concerns about the rate of progress.
Questions that will be explored during the review include:
1. As raised by Tracy Luckett, is the committee trying to perform both management, and
oversight and scrutiny functions, but the working reality is that the committee is not able to
give itself enough space to carry out either function to maximum effect?
2. Is the membership of the committee still appropriate?
3. Is the breadth of the remit of the committee sufficient and are there appropriate impact
measures in place?
4. Because of the importance of the patient experience agenda should the committee become a
new Board committee (and what impact would that have on the composition and remit of the
PEC and possibly other committees)?
5. Should this committee have specific engagement with the CQC?
A small group consisting of Rudy Markham, Phil Luthert (as chairman of the Quality and Safety
Committee) and Ian Tombleson will engage with members of the committee starting with Tracy
Luckett as the committee’s chair.
Following the review a report will be brought back to the Trust Board.
Ian Tombleson
Director of Corporate Governance
17 October 2013
5

Download Report