Evaluation of an innovative approach to the Director of Public Healthʹs annual report

SummaryBackground m of this study was to evaluate the process of an innovative ‘presentation with discussion’ approach to the Director of Public Healthʹs (DPH) annual report for North Derbyshire Health Authority. design methods—survey and interviews. s methods were used to obtain qualitative and quantitative data. Key stakeholders were sent a postal questionnaire, individuals attending presentations could respond via a printed slip or letter, structured group discussions following presentations were recorded manually, and presenters and producers were interviewed. s -five of 41 (85.4%) key stakeholders returned questionnaires, 18 people responded individually, discussions following 26/30 (86.7%) presentations were documented, and all eight presenters and 11 producers were interviewed. The general response was extremely positive with 25 of 35 (71%) key stakeholders, 100% of presenters and 80% of producers preferring the new format to the previous yearʹs report. People felt that it conveyed the public health message effectively, and appreciated the opportunity to contribute to the recommendations for improving health in North Derbyshire. Many were concerned that the circulation should be wide, and key stakeholders were keen to have a printed reference document to support their work. Presenters enjoyed the process although tailoring the presentations to unfamiliar audiences proved difficult. The production team found the process more efficient and focused, although direct production costs were increased. Presenters and producers were concerned that the process for implementing recommendations for action was not fully considered. sions eople preferred this innovative approach to the traditional annual report, and it is therefore recommended that this format should be used for future DPH annual reports. Key stakeholders still require a reference document, and presentersʹ briefing notes could be adapted for this purpose. Circulation of the report should be wide, and further consideration of how participantsʹ recommendations for action are implemented is needed.