Jo Harrison, represents the NNPCF as a member of the Health Policy Influencing Group (HPIG), which is hosted by the National Children’s Bureau. HPIG is a is a strong, independent voice, which advocates for improvements to the health of babies, children and young people. As a group of influential organisations, charities and Royal Colleges, HPIGs’s aim is to look to ensure that the particular and unique health needs of babies, children and young people, with and without SEND are a focus for the health system.
This report provides a snapshot of how the newly formed Integrated Care Systems (ICSs) are enacting their duties for strategic planning as outlined in the Health and Care Act 2022.
The report specifically looks at the requirements for Integrated Care Partnerships (ICPs) to produce an integrated care strategy and for Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) to produce a five-year joint forward plan (JFP). Members of the HPIG reviewed approximately 74% of plans to determine the extent to which they have reflected the needs (SEND and NON-SEND) of babies, children and young people within them.
Whilst invited to include our logo within the report, we were unable to for a number of reasons, which we confirmed to HPIG, in order to further strengthen our working relationship.
The reasons we provided were:
- Co-Production terminology. Our membership hold strong views and values on co-production and the definition provided, whilst outlines the HPIG view of co-production is not as clear as our membership would define. We are also mindful that due to the analysis of the data, the references to co-production throughout the report, as you do reference in your report, are based solely on the ICB representation, we are mindful that some PCFs may disagree with the ICB assertions. As you are aware there can at times be discrepancies to labelling work as co-produced, based on the understanding of the parties.”
- Speech Communication language needs (SCLN) – the number of plans represents only 31% of plans compared to the 74% of plans reviewed overall. We feel this could mean that the recommendations could be argued that they are not representative. Whilst we fully accept that this is likely to be a capacity issue and welcome the feedback and efforts of those reviewing of those plans, we feel the evidence, whilst likely to be representative, is not a strong enough evidence base for the recommendations.”
- The Executive lead roles have been highlighted and referenced throughout the report, which is welcomed as are the subsequent recommendations. That said the guidance published in May 23, goes beyond that of CYP, SEND and Safeguarding as referenced within the report. As an organisation that supports the pan disability voice of parents and carers, our preference would have been to see explicit references to the further two defined EXC Leads of Learning disability and autism (all-age) and Down syndrome (all-age) who can, dependant on ICB, be a named person different to that of those EXC Leads referenced.
We are please to report that our challenge to the report was met with the spirit it was intended and offered assurances that reflecting the views of CYP with SEND remains very important to National Children’s Bureau.