Agenda and draft minutes

Cllr Richardson,  Mithani and Williams gave their apologies for the meeting

The Chair opened the meeting by welcoming all members of the Committee, the public and the team from NHS North West London to the final North West London Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee in the current round. The Chair explained that this was a very significant meeting as the Committee would seek to clarify any issues they had on the proposals before considering the draft report of the committee.  The Chair concluded by apologising for the short amount of time that members had had to consider the draft report. The Chair explained that that was because the report could not be written until the Committee had heard most of the evidence available at its recent meetings.

There were no declarations of interest.

·         4^th September

Mark Spencer, from NHS North West London, stated that the minutes from the 4^th September 2012 should be amended to reflect that Dr Jenkins was conveying his own opinions at that meeting and not the opinions of all GPs nor the opinions of Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow Local Medical Committee (LMC). Mark Spencer added that Dr Jenkins did not have the authority to speak on behalf of others in this regard.

The Chair stated that Dr Jenkins’ evidence could not be reopened for discussion, however she agreed that the Committee should bear in mind the capacity in which Dr Jenkins gave his evidence and that the minutes should be amended to reflect this.

RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on 4^th September be agreed as a correct record subject to minute 4 - - paragraph 29 being amended to read ‘Dr Adam Jenkins, Chairman of Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow LMC, presented opinions from a GPs perspective. Dr Jenkins stated that similar……’

·         6^th September

RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on 6^th September be agreed as a correct record subject to showing that Councillor Richardson was not present and that Maureen Chatterley, Councillor Jones and Ofordi Nabokei were present.

Matters Arising

Cllr Collins explained that he had not been present at the meeting on 6^th September but he had noted from the minutes that there had only been a brief discussion regarding patient transport. He had found this troubling as the Committee had agreed in May that patient transport was a crucial issue. The Chair stated that other members agreed with Councillor Collins and it was therefore expected that this issue would be discussed at this meeting.

Councillor Jones asked why the location of the road show that had taken place in Richmond had not been moved. She had asked explicitly at the last meeting for the location to be changed to one that was more accessible for those who regularly used West Middlesex hospital. NHS North West London apologised that the location had not been changed but they were unaware that this had been an action requested from the last meeting. They explained that the road show had been well publicised and that there was a reasonable turnout. 

·         NHS NW London – Formal Witnesses

Ø  Anne Rainsberry

Ø  Daniel Elkeles

Ø  Mark Spencer

Ø  Lisa Anderton

·         Patient and Public Advisory Group: Trevor Begg

·         Overview and Scrutiny Committees Summaries

·         Other 

The Chair allowed three members of the public to address the Committee briefly before the Committee heard evidence from NHS North West London and the Patient and Public Advisory Group.

Robert Sale

Robert Sale informed the Committee that he had come to speak at the meeting not only on behalf of Brent Fightback but also as a concerned member of the public who had relied on the NHS his entire life. He stated that he had experienced difficulty in trying to communicate with Mr Blair who was the lead communications contact for the project, as he had been informed that Mr Blair did not have a telephone, and he often did not reply to emails. Mr Sale explained that he had asked Mr Blair for a copy of the risk assessment but had yet to receive it, he then asked if the committee had received this document as he believed the risk assessment was fundamental to consideration of the proposals by NHS North West London.

Mr Sale then went onto to reveal his disappointment at the Committee having agreed to a 14 week consultation period when that was only 2 weeks above the legal statutory requirements. He stated that West Sussex had agreed a 20 week consultation period and that Council represented a significantly less number of people than North West London JHOSC did. Mr Sale concluded by urging the Committee to not allow this political driven reform to take place.

The Chair thanked Robert Sale for his contribution and acknowledged that there were risks associated with these recommendations and that these had been considered in a risk assessment. NHS North West London informed the Committee that the risk assessment had been sent to members the day before the meeting. NHS North West London agreed that this had not allowed the members enough time to consider the document to date which was unfortunate.

Emma Tate

Emma Tate addressed the Committee by firstly explaining that she was the Secretary of the Queens Park Area Residents Association, and that the Association had discussed this consultation at its last meeting. She stated that members of the Association had found it very difficult to access the information relating to the consultation, even though they were all fairly well educated. Therefore the consultation was flawed and inadequate as other members of the public may have found it virtually impossible to access the information, especially if they did not have access to a computer or the internet.

Emma Tate also explained that the consultation was inadequate as it was being conducted at a very bad time. Firstly it had taken place when a lot of people were on holiday, and it had also taken place at the same time as the Health and Social Care Act was being implemented. She stated that there should not be any changes to hospital provisions until the public could see and be assured that the out of hospital care offered would be fit for purpose. She asked the Committee if  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

It was agreed that there was not enough time left of the scheduled meeting to discuss the draft report sufficiently and therefore the meeting was adjourned until Monday 1 October 2012 at 4:00pm.

The meeting adjourned at 2.00 pm

1.            WELCOME AND APOLOGIES

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the re-convened meeting.

Apologies were received from Councillors Jon Bryant, Pat Harrison, Sandra Kabir, and Rory Vaughan

2.            Joint Health Overview & Scrutiny Committee: Revised Draft Report

Mr Molyneux introduced the report, which had been  revised in line with members’ comments, including e-mails and ‘Exploring Scope for Consensus by JHOSC’, circulated by Councillor D’Souza.

Members worked through the revised report and agreed the following amendments:

2. Executive Summary (numbering taken from report)

2.1 Overall Case

Page 2, 5^th paragraph, 1^st sentence:the word ‘compelling’ was debated and agreed that is should remain. This paragraph did not mean that the committee believed five Accident & Emergency Departments (A&Es) to be the right number, but that it accepted the Clinical Programme Board’s proposals as being clinically appropriate and financially viable. The JHOSC supported the case for change, the rationale and the argument, but it was outside the capability of the committee to determine the appropriate number of A&Es.

2.2 Main Areas of Concern

Members discussed the order of the issues and agreed that ‘Out of Hospital Strategy’ should be first, followed by ‘Urgent Care Centres’.

‘Urgent Care Centres’ (UCC) should reflect members’ concerns in respect of the lack of a definition of an UCC and the range of services to be provided.

‘Workforce’ should refer to staff retention.

‘Local Hospitals’: ‘some local hospitals’ should be replaced with ‘the future of hospitals not designated as major hospitals’.

‘Measurable Outcomes’ ‘the region’ should be added.

‘Equalities Impact and Non-urgent Transport’ should refer to ‘analysis at borough level’.

‘’Public Understanding’ should be expanded to include ’future role of UCCs is not understood and will need effective communication’.

Last paragraph, second line: ‘stakeholder events’ to be included.

2.3 Recommendations

3. Should be explicit in respect of the trigger points for the implementation of the proposals and the actions should be for Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) and Health and Well-being Boards.

4. Should refer specifically to UCCs.

5. Should also be actions for CCGs.

6. ‘in advance of any decisions being taken in respect of ‘Shaping a Healthier Future’’ should be deleted.

7. ‘Involvement’ should replace ‘Engagement’ and recommendations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.