Meeting the needs of vulnerable people, Reading

Download (PDF 2.77MB)

Summary of report content

The report presents the findings of a roundtable meeting held by Healthwatch Reading on 13 February 2017 with voluntary sector organisations representing 12 different organisations who support local vulnerable people. Some of the main findings were; people seeking help from charities have more complex needs than previously due to funding cuts, perceived gaps in NHS mental health services and perceived failures in integration of health and social care services; increasing numbers are seeking help to appeal benefit sanctions or decisions at PIP; organisations are just about maintaining staff and volunteer numbers but say that people are emotionally worn down by the complexity of cases. In conclusion the roundtable was regarded as a positive initiative by those who attended. Attendees wanted the Reading Health and Wellbeing Board to consider the following key messages. ‘We’re having to do the best we can with limited resources, but so should the council, health and others’. Future consultations with service users about service change/closure should include provision of extra direct support. CCGs and RBC should work more effectively together to ensure there are effective ‘bridges’ between their services to protect vulnerable people. Reading Borough Council and Berkshire West Clinical Commissioning Groups responded to the Healthwatch Reading report.

Would you like to look at:

General details

Report title 
Meeting the needs of vulnerable people, Reading
Local Healthwatch 
Healthwatch Reading
Date of publication 
Saturday, 1 July, 2017
Date evidence capture began 
Monday, 13 February, 2017
Date evidence capture finished 
Friday, 7 July, 2017
Type of report 
Local analysis
Key themes 
Cost of services
Public involvement
Other information of note about this report 
Healthwatch reference number 

Methodology and approach

Was the work undertaken at the request of another organisation? 
What type of organisation requested the work 
Primary research method used 
How was the information collected? 
Engagement Event
If an Enter and View methodology was applied, was the visit announced or unannounced? 

Details of health and care services included in the report

Secondary care services 
Psychiatry/mental health (hospital services)
Mental health services 
Child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS)

Details of people who shared their views

Age group 
Not known
Not known
Not known
Other population characteristics 
People who are geographically isolated
Does the information include public's views? 
Not known
Does the information include carer's, friend's or relative's views? 
Not known
Does the information include staff's views? 
Not known
Types of health and care professionals engaged 
Does the information include other people's views? 
What was the main sentiment of the people who shared their views? 

Outcomes and impact

Were recommendations made by local Healthwatch in the report? 
Does the information contain a response from a provider? 
Yes action has been taken or promised
Is there evidence of impact in the report? 
Is there evidence of impact external to the report? 
What type of impact was determined? 
Network related impact

Network Impact
Relationships that exist locally, regionally, nationally have benefited from the work undertaken in the report
Implied Impact
Where it is implied that change may occur in the future as a result of Healthwatch work. This can be implied in a provider  response, press release or other source. Implied impact can become tangible impact once change has occurred.
Tangible Impact
There is evidence of change that can be directly attributed to Healthwatch work undertaken in the report.