SaHF DMBC Volume 1 Edition 1.1.pdf - Shaping a healthier future

5.3 Feedback received about the process during consultation
The purpose of consultation has been defined as a process “to winnow out errors in the
decision-makers provisional thinking. The JCPCT owes a public law duty to reconsider
matters in the light of responses” 1 . Although most consultation responses have focussed on
the three service change options proposed, the process which led to their identification is
open to critique and the JCPCT should take account of comments on that process in
considering what process to adopt in final decision-making stage. In order to elicit this
feedback, one consultation question (see Section 5.3.1) sought views on the process. Those
who chose not to use the feedback form could also have commented on the process.
5.3.1 Feedback obtained in Consultation Forms
The public consultation ran for 14 weeks from 2 July to 8 October 2012. During consultation
the programme received over 17,000 consultation responses from a range of stakeholders
and responses from a variety of organisations (see Appendix F).
During consultation we sought feedback about the process we used to identify the
consultation options. We wanted to understand if people agreed with the process we used
and if people had any suggestions for how it could be improved. For example, we asked
people the following question in our response form:
Question 21: Please consider the way we decided which hospitals to recommend as
major hospitals, as set out in sections 15 and 16. Do you agree or disagree that this is
the right way to choose between the various possibilities in order to decide which
options to recommend’
4,541 people answered this question. Of these respondents:
60% agreed that the process we used to decide which hospitals to recommend as
major hospitals was the right way to choose between the various possibilities and
decide which options to recommend
28% disagreed
The remaining 11% of people either had „no views either way‟ or responded „not
sure/ don‟t know‟.
Figure 5.1 summarises the results.
1 Court of Appeal (19 April 2012)
5. Process for identifying a recommendation 50