|
|
Suffolk Mental Health
Partnerships NHS Trust
The Suffolk Health System from Staff Group members
representing trade unions from
UNISON,
RCN,
RCN,
Amicus
part of UNITE,
BAOT,
CSP and
SoR
carried out a questionnaire for all staff employed by Suffolk PCT, Suffolk
Mental Health Partnerships NHS Trust and Ipswich Hospitals NHS Trust during
April 2007 to help us understand what really concerns staff and help pin point
why morale is so low within each organisation. Typically, since the radical
government reforms to the NHS, staff members locally have been concerned as to
why these changes and closures to departments and hospitals had to be done and
in many cases, without what may be described as constructive consultation
locally and nationally. Other concerns raised were on issues such as, why was it
all done so quickly? Why doesn’t anybody listen? Why is communication not always
meaningful? Where has job security gone? Are our communities really getting a
better healthcare deal?
To help us all understand in more detail many of the major concerns staff have,
we set out a series of carefully selected questions and constructed a
questionnaire in both hard copy, which was sent out via a network of staff side
representatives, and an electronic version made available through the local
Suffolk HealthCare Branch of UNISON website hosted here at suffolkhealthcare.com
In total, there were just over 1000 valid responses to which some respondents
made additional comments whilst others simply completed the questionnaire using
the appropriate tick boxes.
Although the questionnaire itself was totally anonymous, it was set up with
optional staff group tick boxes to indicate workplace and workgroup type only.
This was set up to help us identify if any particular group was experiencing
abnormal detriment, cutbacks or substantial growth opposed to decline.
We asked the same questions of all 3 employers with the exception of Ipswich
Hospitals Staff Side members adding an additional 3 questions specific to that
Trust.
SMHP NHS Trust was well represented with 318 valid questionnaires being
completed reflecting a wide range of staff views from across the county. The
majority of our returns were mostly from individuals, but in some cases
questionnaires had been completed by small groups or teams as a whole and all
being returned from each staff group from every part of the Trust.
All recorded, counted and checked responses have been since been converted into
a percentage figure for easy comparison.
Initially we asked if staff thought that car parking should be free of charge at
their workplace. Not surprisingly, an overwhelming majority of 97% said yes car
parking should be free with only 3% saying that there should be a charge.
|
|
Conclusion
A full breakdown of all the questions asked and
an analysis report from the responses taken in April 2007 can be seen or
downloaded from the link below.
Read or download the completed questionnaire in full:
Acrobat
PDF page and download
This report was submitted to
SMHP Chief Executive and Directors Monday 16th July 2007
After months of seemingly ignoring our
findings, it seems apparent this pre occupied Trust has more pressing engagements
to consider such as bidding for "Foundation
Hospital Status" other than the well being of it's staff. It may be
considered (by some) this move will save future job loss and increase job
security (for the hierarchy) but with this business venture sure to secure
private finances and land a new shared premises and it's new HQ on the Ipswich Hospital
site, many services and their future could be put in doubt as Catering,
Cleaning, Transport, Estates and Human Resources may all be under threat of closure
or down sizing.
Foundation Trusts are:
part of a market in which trusts compete against each other for patients
unaccountable to the Secretary of State
have greater powers than other Trusts - for example to keep surpluses and borrow
from the private sector.
UNISON believes Foundation
Trusts will lead to increased inequalities between NHS services and the
extension of charging.
We reject the government's argument that they are needed to increase local
accountability and consider their governance arrangements to be flawed.


|
|