dROP

disABLEd RESPONSIVE ORGANISED PEOPLE

7th December 2012 To whom it may concern Regarding the Gloucestershire health and wellbeing strategies for 2013-2032 and 2013 -18 Having actively engaged with the consultancy process on two occasions and following research into neighbouring authorities approaches we write to you today with our considerations. We are pleased to be able to ofcially participate through this letter as encouraged by the consultations ofcials; in addition to our attending the open session aimed at people with long-term health conditions and at the Feedback to the VCS. Being able to write in this way is advantageous, as the form initially provided had a limited accessibility and usability in a read only format. This was a common barrier as your introductory documents were also in accessible to people using text and speech recognition software. To alleviate this situation in the future we urge your staff to consider using software that is compatible with text and speech recognition to maximise engagement. Through reading the full document and participating in the process of consultation, the associates of dROP are aware that you have a broad remit of health and health-outcomes to consider across differing life stages; as such you have focused upon lifestyle choices as your benchmark. Our observation of using life style choices as the benchmark

is that it precludes a full awareness and understanding of vulnerable communities such as people with impairments, disabilities and long-term health conditions. As a group of people drawn from these vulnerable communities we do not see our own life journeys charted in the life stages of the strategies. This is concerning given the long term nature of the strategies, as many people with impairments, disabilities and long-term health conditions are reliant upon ongoing social and health care. In order to participate, ourish and be empowered in society, people such as ourselves require timely, effective, proactive and person-centred health and social planning. Collectively, we could not identify these health and social attributes in the documents labelled Your Health Your Care and Fit for Future in regards to people with impairment, disabilities or illness unrelated to the effects of tobacco, alcohol, sugars, fats and lack of exercise. As people from communities with reduced likelihood of economic and social achievement, we are aware of the wider implications to health and wellbeing that are related to nancial status. As people of working age keen to make a contribution to the economic success of society we were disappointed on the life stage models presented in both the short and long versions of the documents. At the consultation for people with long-term health conditions, we spoke to the ofcials regarding the importance of including broad statements and facts about the potential for impairment and consequent disability at each life stage due to occurrence of random events. Statistics are available through both the NHS and MAIDEN systems, had these been evident, together with signposts to a proactive strategic response, then the sense of its absence would have been considerably reduced.

As a group we were concerned in general about the use of ctional case studies in the documents and that the consultation process didnt recognise random event impairment and focused judgement of vulnerable groups with in society. Nor did these ctional case studies take into account complex, multi-layered health and social care requirements of a detailed nature. We were specically upset regarding the unnuanced case study around mental health impairments in the main

documents which presented a simplistic answer to extremely complex and individual issues. As a group following research around neighbouring and similar authorities we found much of value in the Oxfordshire response to Health and Wellbeing; especially regarding positive language, imagery and engagement with people with impairments, disabilities and longterm health conditions. The Oxfordshire document had clearly dened steps and objectives to reaching long-term goals. At the feedback VCS on the strategy, it was commented that the pathway to ultimate aspirations would be signposted through an analysis of the complaints process. At the time, a dROP member expressed her concern that such a policy and practice was inherently awed; our research and personal experience throws doubt on the efcacy of compliant procedures as they can have a negative impact on physical, mental and emotional wellbeing. This is due to the complex and repetitive nature of such procedures and has been known to result in negative atmosphere and relationships. At the open consultation we raised this from the perspective of a defensive attitude amongst some staff and departments. As associates of dROP, we look forward to reading your next draft and welcome the opportunity to discuss impairment, disability and long-term health conditions (being present and positively engaged with in future documents).

Yours faithfully

dROP RIPPLE
Re-thinking Impairments Positively Promotes Leadership Engagement