Agenda item
Consideration of Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee Draft Report
Minutes:
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
|
. |
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham
Monday1 October 2012 At 2.00pm
|
|
|
PRESENT
|
|
Committee members: Councillors Lucy Ivimy (Hammersmith & Fulham), Chairman, Mel Collins (Brent), Sheila D'Souza (Westminster), Pamela Fisher (Brent), Abdullah Gulaid (Ealing), Krishna James (Harrow), Anita Kapoor (Ealing) and Mary Weale (Kensington & Chelsea) and Ms Maureen Chatterley (Richmond).
|
|
Officers: Gareth Ebenezer (Kensington & Chelsea), Nahreen Matlib (Harrow), Deepa Patel (Hounslow), Sue Perrin (Hammersmith & Fulham) and Kevin Unwin (Ealing),
Also Present: Peter Molyneux,
|
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, 5th paragraph, 1st 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 seven and nine should be combined.
10. Recommendation to be embodied in text.
3. Main Themes
3.1 Case for Change
4th paragraph, 1st sentence should be amended to ………failure to adopt one of the options…..
Integrated Vision: 1st sentence: ‘integrated health, care and housing’ should be replaced with ‘integrated health and social care’.
Option Appraisal: 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence should refer to various members.
Delivery: 3rd paragraph should be deleted.
5th paragraph, last sentence should refer to the lack of a similar level of analysis.
6th paragraph should be deleted.
Non-Emergency and Urgent Care Services: 2nd paragraph should refer to ‘most members’.
Impact on Care: 6th paragraph, last two bullet points should be incorporated in the narrative.
NHS Trusts’ Wider Plans: 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, ‘Charing Cross Hospital’’ should be replaced with ‘Charing Cross, Ealing or Central Middlesex Hospitals’.
Measurement; this paragraph should be deleted.
3.3 Out of Hospital Care
The preliminary results from the NW London Integrated Care Pilot should be referenced.
3rd paragraph, 1st sentence, add ‘through their local Health and Well-being Boards’.
5th paragraph, last sentence, add ‘and Healthwatch’.
Equalities Impact: 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence add ‘and from borough to borough’.
3.5 Risk Analysis
The high level of risk attached to doing nothing should be noted.
The risks identified by members would not be amended, as this had been attached as a document previously sent to the NHS.
Final paragraph, delete ‘as a project of this size and complexity ‘.
3.6 Underlying Assumptions
Pace of Change: delete first paragraph.
Public Educations: add reference to the lack of public understanding of the role of an UCC and the need for further explanation and communication.
Resilience: delete paragraph.
3.7 Consultation Process
Public Engagement: note the Committee’s request for a detailed breakdown of numbers reached through the consultation process.
Consultation Period: Acknowledge the extension of the consultation period at the request of the shadow JHOSC.
Patient Involvement; Note the stakeholder events and the establishment of advisory groups by some CCGs.
|
|
|
|
Meeting ended: |
6.20 pm |
|
Chairman |
|
|
|
Contact officers: |
Gayle Fentiman Democratic Services Officer Legal and Procurement London Borough of Brent (: 020 8937 4617 E-mail: gayle.fentiman@brent.gov.uk
Sue Perrin Committee Co-ordinator Governance and Scrutiny London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham |
|
|
|
(: 020 8753 2094 |
|
|
|
E-mail: sue.perrin@lbhf.gov.uk |
|
Supporting documents:
PDF 531 KB