OUS, Oslo debate | There should be no unfortunate financial ties that could impose restrictions

Opinions This is a debate post. The post expresses the writer’s views.

Lilly Ann Elvestad, general secretary of the Funksjonshemmedes Fellesorganisaison and Ingrid Stenstadvold Ross, general secretary of the Norwegian Cancer Society believe that I take the man and not the ball in my reply to Eirik Mosveen’s comment about the notification case in OUS.

In his comment, Mosveen directed unusually harsh criticism at the shop stewards in the hospital, and this criticism was partly based on the user representatives’ views on the matter. In my reply, I raise doubts about the independence of the user representatives.

I’ll leave man and ball lie, and go straight to Elvestad and Stenstadvold Ross’s challenge for proposals to improve the organization and anchoring of the work. I believe that the scheme would be strengthened by the fact that the representatives were not appointed by the board, but nominated by the user organizations – and preferably through an election scheme.

I also think it is unfortunate that the user organizations have to apply to the regional health authority for funds every year. This creates a financial bond. Instead, funds could be allocated according to a predefined mechanism, such as the number of members. Finally, I think the user organizations could benefit from having regular meetings with people other than the management. Elected representatives for tens of thousands of employees could be a place to start.

We are all users of the hospitals in Norway, and it is important that user experiences are taken into account in the best possible way in operation, development and planning. I believe that it is appropriate and profitable that someone undertakes the task of promoting input by virtue of their position as a user representative, and see no qualms about being compensated financially.

But the user representatives’ input should be well-grounded, and there should be no unfortunate financial ties that could place limitations on the exercise of the office.

Read more comments, debate posts and Oslo stories on Avisa Oslo’s debate page Oslodebatten

also read