This report sets out what we heard during public engagement on three draft clinical policies reviewed by NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria ICB: Carpal tunnel syndrome surgery, Sacral neuromodulation and the surgical release of trigger finger. Engagement took place over four weeks in March 2026 to support the ICB’s duty to involve.
We gathered views through an online questionnaire for each policy and a discussion with the Citizens Health Reference Group (CHRG). In total, we received 77 questionnaire responses about Carpal tunnel syndrome surgery, 68 about Sacral neuromodulation and 92 about trigger finger, alongside discussion with 11 CHRG members.
Overall, respondents showed a good spread across Lancashire and South Cumbria and reported high levels of understanding of the proposed changes (95–97% across the three surveys). Support for the Carpal tunnel syndrome surgery and Sacral neuromodulation policies was very strong, with no respondents disagreeing with either proposal. For trigger finger, the majority agreed, with a minority (12%) disagreeing or strongly disagreeing.
- Carpal tunnel syndrome surgery: 92% agreed/strongly agreed and nobody disagreed. Comments focused on reassurance that the policy is clinically led, clarity on subjective criteria (for example, what counts as symptoms that ‘significantly impact’ sleep or function), and potential impact on waiting times.
- Sacral neuromodulation: no respondents disagreed. Feedback supported alignment with NICE and improved access, alongside requests for clearer explanations of the trial phase and follow-up, and consideration of travel to specialist centres and consistent decision-making through MDT assessment.
- Trigger finger: most respondents agreed, but concerns were raised about perceived restrictions and whether changes could delay effective treatment. Key themes included the need for flexibility for individual circumstances, clarity on terms such as ‘interfere with activities’, and diabetes-related considerations (including steroid injection risks and informed consent).
Across the engagement, people asked for policies and supporting information to be written in plain English and for decision-making to be consistent and transparent. These findings will be shared with the ICB’s clinical policy group to inform final policy wording, any supporting clinician guidance, and patient-facing summaries.