Mumsnet name-checked by Department of Health

[tribpot]

Just thought you might like to read the consultation document on information revolution.

I hope this isn't a duplicate thread, I don't think the specific MN angle has been picked up!

Hello Trib - any idea which of the docs mentions MN?

Hello! The consultation document says "New forms of interaction and even new communities are emerging that would not be possible without the openings provided by information technology. Communities can now be defined by their needs, rather than where they live. The role of websites such as ?Mumsnet? in generating new ways of sharing insights and information ? including health information ? is having a lasting effect on our society."

Hooray! I bleedin' hope we have a lasting effect.. It would be jolly nice if they listened, though I suspect they regard us as a handy new broadcast medium..

Apols for dot-dot-dots, is vair nearly bedtime and my day is trailing off.

I think they are a bit intrigued by the broadcast medium, and its relative power. I don't personally see how it translates to DH objectives but equally I do think that - beyond our supportive power for new mums - fibromyalgia sufferers may have found an outlet here? Among other chronic sufferers. That's not an MN thing, it's a forum thing.

There was a suggestion perhaps a year ago that the Dept of Health would pay for MN to put some sort of widget on its Local pages that would allow women to give feedback on thier experiences of childbirth and perinatal care (something like that).

Sounds nice, but what's the betting that in the current climate this sort of anecdotal feedback is used to make them look caring and consultative whilst they are cutting back on proper controlled health research and failing to invest properly?

I worry that 'community' sites like MN might get pulled in to the Big Society rhetoric -- that they accidentally help the govt to promote the idea that 'communities' can work with govt in ways that facilitate some reduction of state responsibility.

In general (not just with online communities) there is a worry that Big Society rhetoric will lead to a kind of ersatz third sector, not defined and regulated in reasonable ways (see for e.g. the 30% reduction in the charity commission budget).

I'm sure they are ruddy tempted to abolish NHS Direct on the grounds that people can start a thread on MN if they are dithering about whether to go to A&E...

Don't be giving them ideas Edam!

I think that the Big Society will continue Labour's trend of pulling third sector orgainisations into service delivery under contract as a way of making the commercialisation of service delivery look less cynical and less blind to community interest. And the Big Society rhetoric muddies the water not even Tories know what it means so that all sorts of commercial activity will blend in with 'community initiatives' and all sorts of entities that have commercial interests will be able to represent themselves as being 'of the community'

When commercial organisations get involved with public service projects they have one of three motives -- straightforward commercial ones embodied in payment for services delivered under contract; a PR objective of promoting their organisation via some pro bono activity; and genuine philanthropic interests.

The proper regulation of the third sector, partly by the legal structure entailed in the status of charity or social enterprise, and at the very least by an established code such as the Compact is necessary to avoid a complete elision of commercial and communitarian motive.

It is especially problematic in the case of online 'communities' like MN, where the term 'Mumsnet' doesn't distinuish between a community of posters on the one hand and a commercial organisation on the other.

MN is fortunate to have a well-intentioned set of owners, but these sorts of developments are worrying when you think of the precedent they set for this sort of Big Society equivocation.

Agree entirely, Elieson. They are going to make all hospitals turn into Foundation Trusts and then privatize them under the flag of social enterprise. Which was NOT in the Tory manifesto - they have no public backing for this at all. And I'm not convinced social enterprise in the UK is sufficiently developed to run the whole ruddy NHS. Where's the public accountability?

Handy thing for govt. is that social enterprises will be outside the Freedom of Information Act...

Bloody hell about social enterprise and FOI Act.

quite. Do you work in the NHS, or in policy research anywhere?

just to note that anything classed as 'environmental information' which includes a lot to do with health if you word your question correctly (comparing two areas), comes under the Env Info Regulations as well as the FOI Act.

EIR covers any body 'performing public functions' as defined by a EU directive, so includes water and utility companies, housing associations, healthcare... so many social enterprises will be covered.

I've heard that such orgs will be added to Schedule 1 of the FOI act (the bit which lists who is covered) but given delays previously I wouldn't expect that to happen in a hurry!

phew. when you said name-checked I had some horrible vision of a tesco-like data base listing hatwoman's running habits and failed coil insertion