1/Surely this indicates an overt example of discrimination - in this instance, saneism- against #LXP Peer Support Work roles? Is this discrimination on the part of #AgendaForChange #A4C or is it unscrupulous managers writing job descriptions that use keywords to dumb down roles?>
https://twitter.com/sarahpsyc/status/1484272701162328067
2/This is why we need #LXP senior roles so that we have recruiting managers who work within our discipline who understand the different levels of skillsets required for each type of job & ensure that these aren’t belittled by conflicting internal agendas. Presently no structures>
3/are in place in most organisations to prevent this and #LXP staff are at the mercy of benevolent individuals rather than a robust system to protect them from discrimination in the workplace structures & working environments. That just isn’t good enough. The other issue is that>
4/presently organisations who may find these types of changes a threat are still in a position to develop and recruit for senior #LXP posts themselves. They can still find ways to rubber stamp development of these posts by ‘including service users’, rather than working with >
5/skilled and experienced #LXP consultants who will ensure that systems of supervision and support will have been developed, not only for LXP staff but for teams learning to work with them, as well as adequate resources and budget allocated to develop this work. It is >
5/ entirely unacceptable to expect service users to do this work for free or an involvement fee, when this service would easily cost £1000 consultancy fee for any other organisational or developmental change consultant brought in to do this work. Maybe more. Director level >
6/ consultancy is easily £2000+ a day. Equality is not £150 inclusion fee, y’all. It is also not expecting service users to know the internal NHS systems or the level of discrimination towards Mental Health that exists amongst staff towards staff. For service users who happen to>
7/ have those skills, you don’t get to exploit them because of it. You wouldn’t get to pay the CEO £150 involvement fee because they are a service user as well (albeit in another trust or via private healthcare for their bipolar diagnosis), would you? I didn’t think so. >
8/We need to get away from letting non-LXP staff get away with doing ‘participatory’ work. This is #LXP work. If an organisation cannot tolerate knowing that people who use lived experience in their work are going to take the issues raised by service users into the heart of the >
9/ organisation and keep them alive in the meetings and discussions that happen when they go home from the involvement days with tea, biscuits and smiles - then they should not be trusted with either this work or developing systems where #LXP staff are employed to do it either. >
10/ Something needs to happen where external #LXP led agencies work with NHS trusts and ensure that things are done effectively, and report them if they aren’t. Millions of pounds of ‘participatory’ funds are being used to pay non-LXP staff in posts they keep developing for >
11/ themselves to manage #LXP staff or do LXP work, whilst creating Band 2/3 Peer Support Worker roles. It isn’t ok. There’s no accountability presently. We need @NHSEngland to start thinking about how this is done. Feel free to add your own ideas, thoughts & comments below *End*
@threadreaderapp please unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
