Grampians Pyrenees Healthy Communities Plan

1
Grampians Pyrenees Healthy Communities Plan

• John Dixon
• Manager - Community Services
• Pyrenees Shire

2
Partner Councils/agencies

• Ararat Rural City Council
• Northern Grampians Shire
• Grampians Pyrenees Primary Care Partnership
• Department of Human Services Grampians Regional
  Office
• Pyrenees Shire

3
Northern Grampians Shire
4
Ararat Rural City Council
5
Pyrenees Shire
6
Grampians Pyrenees Primary Care Partnership

• Covers the local government areas of Ararat Rural
  City Council, Northern Grampians Shire Pyrenees
  Shire

7
Aims Objectives

• Establishing an innovative approach to public
  health planning
• Integrate the planning processes of the
  Grampians Pyrenees Primary Care Partnership (
  community health planning) with local government
  (public health planning framework).

8
Why?

• The majority of health welfare service
  providers in this area were involved with the
  PCP.
• Likely that the same agencies would be involved
  in a Municipal Public Health Plan
• Why have a duplicated process?

9
Project Methodology

• Establishment group
• Councillors,Council Officers, PCP Executive
  Officer DHS Regional Office
• Project Brief
• Consultant
• Reference Group
• Steering Group

10
Planning Methodology

• PHASE 1
• PROJECT ESTABLISHMENT
• PHASE 2
• FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT
• PHASE 3
• CONSULTATION
• PHASE 4
• PLAN FINALISATION

11
Planning Stakeholders(PCP Agencies)

• 26 member agencies including
• Hospitals
• Health Centres
• Neighbourhood House
• Family Support Services
• Nursing Homes
• Local Government
• Division Of GPs
• Regional Sports Assemblies
• Uniting Care agencies
• Aboriginal Co-op
• Bush Nursing Centre

12
Anticipated Outcomes

• One plan for the Grampians Pyrenees region
• Integration of CHP\MPHP processes
• Integrate a focus on social wellbeing within
  other Council planning processes.
• Identify key areas where an integrated approach
  will work
• Identify key areas where unique solutions may be
  required

13
PHASE 1 PROJECT ESTABLISHMENTAims

• To establish the process to ensure maximum
  involvement of all parties
• To meet with the Working Group
• To produce a detailed Consultation Strategy
• To produce a detailed Communication Strategy.

14
PHASE 1 PROJECT ESTABLISHMENT Process

• Establish relationship with the Working Group
  Consultant
• Develop methodology, scope, timelines Workplan
• Develop a Communication Strategy.
• Develop Consultation Strategy

15
PHASE 2 FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENTAims

• To analyse plans, needs assessments other
  relevant documents.
• To integrate the various planning processes
  required in the sub region.
• To build ownership of the process, vision and
  outcomes.

16
PHASE 2 FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT Process

• Undertake desk research of existing demographics,
  needs assessments, consultations from reports and
  plans from all stakeholders and integrate the key
  themes and priority issues to be addressed into
  discussion papers for consideration in each local
  area.

17
PHASE 2 FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT Process

• Review the planning frameworks and templates
  provided by the Department of Human Services to
  ensure that the integrated plan is developed in a
  form that meets Departmental Requirements i.e
• Health promotion templates
• Environments for Health Framework
• PCP Community Health Plan requirements

18
PHASE 2 FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT Process

• Conducted a workshop with a widened group that
  included PCP agency representatives as well as
  the initial project group.
• Objective
• to confirm the framework that will guide the
  plans development.

19
PHASE 3 CONSULTATION Aim

• Undertake stakeholder consultation with support
  from members of the Project Management Group to
  confirm priority needs and issues and to develop
  strategies to respond to agreed priorities

20
PHASE 3 CONSULTATION Process

• Conduct four Local Area Consultation meetings in
  
• Stawell
• Ararat
• Beaufort
• St Arnaud
• Including non PCP stakeholders in these
  meetings, i.e. schools, youth organisations
  businesses

21
PHASE 3 CONSULTATION Process

• Consult with CEOs and Councillors in the three
  municipalities
• Consider needs, past priorities and areas of
  common core business.
• Consider data from local area meetings that have
  been held by local governments

22
PHASE 3 CONSULTATION Process

• Conduct planning day to
• Identify and agree on priorities for the Healthy
  Communities plan and develop integrated
  strategies to address priority areas
• Workshop where agency interests are aligned with
  agreed priorities and identify implementation
  commitments agencies are prepared to make
• Determine the processes to complete action plans.

23
PHASE 4 PLAN FINALISATIONAims

• To document a single integrated Grampians
  Pyrenees Healthy Communities Plan 2004 2007
  that is clear and able to be readily used by all
  stakeholders as a working plan.

24
PHASE 4 PLAN FINALISATIONProcess

• Document a single integrated Healthy
  Communities Plan to
• include program outlines (objectives, strategies
  and stakeholder involvement) for each priority
  area.
• integrate relevant frameworks.
• Conduct a full planning day on to provide a key
  opportunity to
• table a draft report
• finalise and confirm agreed priorities and
  strategies
• workshop where agency interests are aligned with
  agreed priorities and strategies to build on the
  work that has occurred through local area
  meetings and individual agency consultation.

25
How did the project differ from the original
project brief?

• The project is still progress, with a target of
  adoption by Councils in December
• There is some perception that the plan that has
  emerged is more service provider focused and less
  council focused

26
What were the influences that created the
observed changes ?

• There has been less Council engagement from
  non-health\community services sectors than
  anticipated
• Time for development has been constrained
• Strategy development will take longer than
  anticipated

27
Were the aims and objectives achieved?Positives

• Stakeholders were brought together in the one
  planning forum
• The planning processes for CHP MPHP were
  integrated
• A regional plan was developed
• An ongoing group was formed to over-see the
  implementation of the plan

28
Were the aims and objectives achieved?Still in
progress

• Integrating a focus on social wellbeing within
  Council business
• Integrating more of Council business into the
  plan
• Clarifying opportunities for joint approaches
• Getting stakeholders to understand the
  Environments for Health Framework (Council
  external providers).

29
Was the community involved?

• This project did not seek direct community
  involvement.
• The PCP many member agencies had been
  consulting with their user groups
• We relied on that consultation
• There was a perception from the community of
  over-consultation

30
Was the stakeholder involvement what you hoped?

• Service provider participation has been good
• Agencies have provided access to a wide range of
  information, reports and resources
• Consultative sessions with stakeholders were
  valuable and attended by a good cross section of
  providers

31
Was the stakeholder involvement what you hoped?

• Some agencies have participated in all processes
• Some agencies have yet to be engaged

32
Have partnerships been developed?

• There were already pre-existing partnerships
  between PCP members
• The local government partners also had several
  pre-existing relationships across different
  portfolio areas i.e. Emergency Management,
  Environmental Health, Regional Libraries

33
Have partnerships been developed?

• The project has brought some different agencies
  together
• A self registering process has led to agencies
  indicating interest in an issue.
• This may lead to new associations or partnerships
• Agencies were also asked to indicate if they
  wished to take a lead role in a particular
  strategic area

34
Have council officers changed the way they work
because of the project?

• There has been an increased understanding of the
  Environments For Health Framework
• Some officers have increased their reference to
  the EFHF in their work
• Leading The Way presentations have been held in
  all councils
• Some officers have attended LTW train the trainer
  sessions
• Recognition that there is a need for ongoing
  change management re EFHF

35
What would you do differently next time?

• The timeframes for the project have been
  problematic
• The time commitment from officers was
  underestimated
• It was difficult to co-ordinate schedules across
  three councils and 9 people
• Interpretation write up of outcomes from each
  phase has been pressurised
• Next Time
• A longer timeframe.
• As this will be an ongoing process, the next
  stage is consolidation refinement over 12
  months

36
What would you do differently next time?

• Communication strategies didnt work as well as
  anticipated
• Communication was by e-mail, however address
  lists had some problems with some people dropping
  off for no obvious reasons
• Timings for distribution were set, the intent was
  to provide the maximum review time for
  document(s). Sometimes these were not met or were
  met after close of business leading to a
  reduction of review time.
• Next Time
• Deadlines with date\time-frame
• Maybe web site based rather than e-mail based

37
Where to now?

• Implementation of the plan
• Recognition that there is still a lot of refining
  needed to action elements
• Ongoing group to over-see progress
• Development of agency action plans
• Submission to Councils for adoption by Dec 2004