Issue - meetings

Purpose of the report: To provide the Select Committee with an update on the public consultation undertaken on the Improving Healthcare Together Programme and future plans.

Witnesses:

Clare Burgess, Chief Executive Officer, Surrey Coalition of Disabled People

Andrew Demetriades, Joint Programme Director, Improving Healthcare Together

Daniel Elkeles, Chief Executive, Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust

Dr Russell Hills, Clinical Chair, Surrey Downs Integrated Care Partnership

Kester Holmes, Head of Research Projects, Opinion Research Services

Charlotte Keeble, Senior Programme Manager, South West London Alliance

Brian Niven, Technical Principal for Healthcare, Mott MacDonald

Giselle Rothwell, Associate Director of Communications and Engagement, Surrey Heartlands

Kate Scribbins, Chief Executive Officer, Healthwatch Surrey

Matthew Tait, Joint Accountable Officer, Surrey Heartlands

Key points raised during the meeting:

1. The Chairman outlined the scrutiny process for this item. The Select Committee would produce a set of recommendations by 12 June, which would be submitted to the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JHSOC). The JHOSC’s feedback would then be taken into account for the final decision at the Committees-in-Common meeting on 3 July.
2. The Joint Programme Director for Improving Healthcare Together (IHT) introduced the report. Public consultation on IHT had been active between 8 January 2020 and 1 April 2020. Opinion Research Services (ORS) had been pulling together all of the responses from a wide-ranging process. Consultation analysis was not the only piece of evidence used to make the final decision, but it did play an important part in the process. The programme had begun to consider some of the areas of work that were needed, which included a high-level strategic review of Covid-19, bed numbers and travel and access.
3. The Head of Research Projects for ORS noted that public consultation was intended to be a dialogue but not a referendum that made any decision in itself. The public’s feedback was to be conscientiously taken into account.
4. The Head of Research Projects presented the background of the public consultation. The proposed model of care had gained broad support, although it did vary by geography: a higher proportion of Merton CCG residents viewed the proposed model of care as poor or very poor, while the majority of respondents living near Epsom or Sutton viewed it positively. The majority of NHS staff members thought the proposed model was a good or very good solution, and there was also a majority in favour of the proposed model amongst respondents who were not NHS staff. Overall, Sutton did receive slightly broader support than Epsom or St Helier. A positive view of the Sutton option was more common amongst those who viewed the proposed model of care as positive, while those favouring Epsom or St Helier were more likely to have a negative view of the proposed model of care. There was strong support for Sutton amongst NHS staff.
5. The most vocal concern expressed in consultation regarded travel and access. There was concern that the changes might lead to poorer health outcomes, wherever the hospital was built, due to longer journey times. There were also concerns about parking. Travel-related times were expressed by supporters and opponents of the proposed model of care and/or Sutton option. Another concern  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13