Agenda item
Future of Central Middlesex Hospital and Willesden Centre for Health
The reports are attached.
Minutes:
The Chair referred to the fact that this item had been deferred from the previous meeting as members had wanted more information, particularly in relation to Brent Mental Health Services moving to Central Middlesex Hospital (CMH).
Rob Larkman (Chief Officer, Brent Clinical Commissioning Group) presented the report that provided an update on the future of Central Middlesex Hospital (CMH) and Willesden Centre for Health (WCH). He explained that CMH was currently underused and so consideration was being given as to how to utilise the site more, including providing additional services. CMH was also being considered in the context of Shaping a Healthier Future (SaHF) and Rob Larkman drew members’ attention to the report summarising the programme to date. Rob Larkman then referred to the report outlining the three options that had been considered for CMH and advised that option two, considering a long list of all potential additional services that could be safely and practically provided at the site, had been the one pursued. As a result of the exercise undertaken, it had been determined that following additional services would be provided at CMH:
· Hub Plus for Brent
· Elective Orthopaedic Centre
· Re-locate Brent’s Mental Health Services from Park Royal Centre for Mental Health to CMH
· Regional genetics service relocated
The SaHF programme also had implications for WCH which had historically been underused and Brent CCG was due to consider the two preferred options at a meeting of the Governing Body in March.
During members’ discussion, it was felt that there was a lack of information regarding proposals for the Park Royal Centre (PRC) and details of services presently provided there were sought. In respect of mental health services, it was asked where this would be located and how would the remaining wards be accommodated. The percentage of resources set aside to undertake the reconfiguration of mental health services was requested. A member asked whether free parking spaces would be available at CMH as they currently were at PRC. Another member commented that there had been a wide range of views expressed at the public engagement meeting on 19 February and if the CMH was to be fully utilised, will it be fit for purpose to be able to do so. Details of the costs of moving services to CMH and the total number of bed spaces were sought. It was commented that there seemed to be a lack of space around the beds in CMH in comparison to Northwick Park Hospital (NPH). Information was also sought in respect of a memory clinic, treatment teams and a home treatment team.
A member felt that following visits to CMH, PRC and NPH, that NPH had significantly more space than the other sites and appeared to be more suitable to accommodate some services that CMH would provide. There was also an apparent lack of outside space at CMH and it was suggested that a lot more work would be needed before CMH could accommodate such services. It was queried where the kitchen food provision for long stay patients would be located in CMH. Concerns were expressed at the proximity of the proposed new block to the recovery ward at CMH. Another member sought views with regard to the flexibility of the outline plan for CMH in view of the new services being provided at CMH. They also requested some information outlining how Brent CCG would be able to fund the proposals.
In response to the issues raised, Rob Larkman agreed to provide information regarding the percentage of resources being put aside to reconfigure mental health services and the total costs of the moving of services to CMH and how these would be funded by Brent CCG. He added that detailed costings would be identified during the development of the business outline case. Rob Larkman advised that issues in relation to outside space, shared space and design were being looked at and steps being taken to prevent any overlooking and to ensure the CMH was fit for purpose for the additional services it was going to provide.
Robyn Doran (Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust) informed members that acute services, a mother and baby unit, low secure unit, small rehabilitation unit and an a psychiatric intensive care unit would be located at PRC. She advised that the mental health services at CMH would be located at A-CAD, whilst Brent CCG was working with other key partners in respect of accommodating the remaining wards. Detailed work was also being undertaken with regard to staff numbers and bed spaces, however there was no intention to reduce the total number of beds. Robyn Doran confirmed that memory clinics were provided as a community service, whilst treatment teams were already on site at CMH. The home treatment teams were located in various locations in the borough, although there was not a team at PRC. Robyn Doran advised that kitchen food provision for long term patients would be provided on site and every effort would be made to ensure high quality food was provided. The committee heard that more detailed plans would be provided when available in respect of the new block at CMH. Robyn Doran stated that she was not yet sure whether free parking would be available at CMH, although this may be possible at the A-CADS part of the site. Robyn Doran advised that the total footspace for the CMH proposals had been identified and comparisons could be made with PRC and drawings will also be provided in future.
The Chair stated that this item would be considered again at future meetings. She emphasised the importance of ensuring quality of life for patients and issues such as outside space needed to be taken into account. The Chair requested that the revised plans be provided to the committee at the earliest opportunity and also shared with other relevant organisations.
Supporting documents:
- 3-Plans for Central Middlesex Hospital - covering report, item 6. PDF 63 KB
- 3-HOSC March Shaping a Healthier Future and Central Middlesex Hospital, item 6. PDF 61 KB
- 3- Brent CMH for HOSC March 2014 final, item 6. PDF 1 MB