Our Digital Critical Friends (DCFs) were invited to help in designing and delivering the Public Panel engagement events over the summer. The events were held across the summer with 50 people selected by lottery from across Wessex to consider the question “How do we create a decision-making process for the SDE that is trusted by the people of Wessex?”
Some of our DCFs explain their involvement in their own words:
Lindsay:
“As a Digital Critical Friend of the Wessex Secure Data Environment, I was invited along to contribute to the Public Panel events. I feel the SDE project has the potential to become a valuable asset for the NHS if it is established in a robust way with wide support from the British public and it is up to us to get involved, give our support and ensure this happens. I feel our opinions and concerns are listened to and the team developing this project genuinely want our input so that the SDE is successfully rolled out.
At one event, I was asked to give a presentation on how and why I got involved as a DCF. I was pleased to share my personal story of how the NHS has saved my life twice in pioneering surgeries after I was born without an oesophagus. Like so many of us, I feel I owe so much to the NHS and passionately believe in protecting its future: I want to do what I can to sustain this wonderful institution and feel a sense of personal satisfaction by contributing to this project.”
Sue:
”I was glad to have the opportunity of attending two of the Public Panel sessions acting as the Administrator at one and as a support Facilitator at the final meeting.
It was a privilege to meet members of the public, face-to-face, and observe the lively debates, enthusiastic engagement and the thoughtful questions being asked by the participants. I learned a great deal by hearing the opinions of the Wessex residents about aspects of the WSDE project first-hand.”
Celia:
“I attended the final Public Panel on 28th September.
My main role as a DCF was to assist the facilitators of two groups at different times during the day, without influencing what was said by the public participants. It was also a listening role, to help ensure that future reports of the proceedings accurately reflected the views of the participants.
In particular, I helped the facilitator by writing the agreed notes of the group on the board, which left them free to concentrate on the discussion of the various topics with the participants. At times, I also encouraged participants to repeat or expand on some of their passing comments to ensure they were captured in the notes.
I found the day both interesting and informative. I could see first hand, the challenge the facilitators sometimes had in encouraging individuals to voice their thoughts. It was important to convey that the views of each member of the group counted equally and were to be taken into account, and not just the views of those who spoke up readily. I thought that the voting process at different stages of the day was beneficial, as it encouraged individuals to make their own, independent choices.
The talks throughout the day were also informative, and helped build the vision of the project, for both the DCFs and the public participants. This reinforced my belief in the importance of the project, with its great potential to help patients, the public in general and the NHS.
I also took part in the face to face planning and preparation meeting on 10th July, before the first Public Panel. This included hearing the two DCF speakers, and we were able to give really positive feedback on how well the talks came over. It was good to see the plans in action on the 28th September.”
Marcus:
“I attended the last day of the public engagement process on 28th September 2024 as a Critical Friend. I was essentially an observer so I did not participate in the engagement itself, but rather oversaw proceedings and discussed them with participants in order to satisfy myself that the process itself was properly applied and that what was recorded accurately reflected the outcomes which emerged.
I was impressed with the quality of engagement and the level of detail that members of the public clearly had of what they were examining and considering. They were not deterred from raising issues they felt needed to be challenged or explored which was very reassuring. They were, however, asked to examine specific concepts rather than raising a wider, more abstract way range of issues. I came away from the day very satisfied that members of the public had been provided with a very real opportunity to be involved in the project and its development.”