Personal and Public Involvement and its impact - Monitoring, measuring and evaluating the impact of Personal and Public Involvement (PPI) in Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland.

Introduction
This report details the findings from research conducted across Northern Ireland’s Health and Social Care Trusts during 2015 which examines the current state of Personal and Public Involvement (PPI). This is about how service users, carers and patients engage with staff, management and directors of statutory health and social care organisations. Most statutory health and social care organisations must, under legislation, meet the requirements of PPI. PPI has been part of health and social care policy in Northern Ireland since 2007 and became law two years later with the introduction of the Health and Social Care Reform Act (2009). It is, therefore, timely that PPI is now assessed in this systematic way in order to both examine the aspects which are working well and to highlight those areas where improvements need to be made. As far as possible, this Summary Report is written in an accessible way, avoiding jargon and explaining key research terms, so as to ensure it is widely understood. This is in keeping with established good practice in service user involvement research. This summary, therefore, gives a picture of PPI in Northern Ireland currently. There is also a fuller report which gives a lot more details about the research and findings. Information on this is available from the Public Health Agency and/or the Patient and Client Council.

Staff training in autism: The one-eyed wo/man….

Having well-trained staff is key to ensuring good quality autism services, especially since people affected with autism generally tend to have higher support needs than other populations in terms of daily living as well as their mental and physical health. Poorly-trained staff can have detrimental effects on service provision and staff morale and can lead to staff burn-out as well as increased service user anxiety and stress. This paper reports on a survey with health, social care, and education staff who work within the statutory autism services sector in the UK that explored their knowledge and training with regards to autism. Interview data obtained from staff and service users offer qualitative illustrations of survey findings. Overall, the findings expose an acute lack of autism specific training that has detrimental impacts. At best this training was based on brief and very basic awareness raising rather than on in-depth understanding of issues related to autism or skills for evidence-based practice. Service users were concerned with the effects that lack of staff training had on the services they received. The paper concludes with a discussion of policy routes to achieving quality staff training based on international best practice. The focus is on improving the quality of life and mental health for services users and staff as well as making potentially significant cost-savings for governments.

Perceptions of the common good in planning

There has been plenty of debate in the academic literature about the nature of the common good or public interest in planning. There is a recognition that the idea is one that is extremely difficult to isolate in practical terms; nevertheless, scholars insist that the idea ‘…remains the pivot around which debates about the nature of planning and its purposes turn’ (Campbell & Marshall, 2002, 163–64). At the point of first principles, these debates have broached political theories of the state and even philosophies of science that inform critiques of rationality, social justice and power. In the planning arena specifically, much of the scholarship has tended to focus on theorising the move from a rational comprehensive planning system in the 1960s and 1970s, to one that is now dominated by deliberative democracy in the form of collaborative planning. In theoretical terms, this debate has been framed by a movement from what are perceived as objective and elitist notions of planning practice and decision-making to ones that are considered (by some) to be ‘inter-subjective’ and non-elitist. Yet despite significant conceptual debate, only a small number of empirical studies have tackled the issue by investigating notions of the common good from the perspective of planning practitioners. What do practitioners understand by the idea of the common good in planning? Do they actively consider it when making planning decisions? Do governance/institutional barriers exist to pursuing the common good in planning? In this paper, these sorts of questions are addressed using the case of Ireland. The methodology consists of a series of semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 urban planners working across four planning authorities within the Greater Dublin Area, Ireland. The findings show that the most frequently cited definition of the common good is balancing different competing interests and avoiding/minimising the negative effects of development. The results show that practitioner views of the common good are far removed from the lofty ideals of planning theory and reflect the ideological shift of planners within an institution that has been heavily neoliberalised since the 1970s.