Agenda and minutes
PDF 136 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN
Contact: Ross Pike or Victoria Lower Email: ross.pike@surreycc.gov.uk or Email: victoria.lower@surreycc.go.uk
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Minutes: None received. |
|
|
MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING: 30 MAY 2014
To agree the minutes as a true record of the meeting. Minutes: The minutes were agreed as a true record of the meeting. |
|
|
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
To receive any declarations of disclosable pecuniary interests from Members in respect of any item to be considered at the meeting.
Notes: · In line with the Relevant Authorities (Disclosable Pecuniary Interests) Regulations 2012, declarations may relate to the interest of the member, or the member’s spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom the member is living as husband or wife, or a person with whom the member is living as if they were civil partners and the member is aware they have the interest. · Members need only disclose interests not currently listed on the Register of Disclosable Pecuniary Interests. · Members must notify the Monitoring Officer of any interests disclosed at the meeting so they may be added to the Register. · Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest. Minutes: Rachael I Lake informed the Committee that due to a personal, non pecuniary, declaration of interest she would not take part in the discussions under item 7 of the agenda.
No additional declarations of interests were made. |
|
|
QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS
To receive any questions or petitions.
Notes: 1. The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (26 June 2014). 2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (25 June 2014). 3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Minutes: None received. |
|
|
CHAIRMAN'S ORAL REPORT
The Chairman will provide the Committee with an update on recent meetings he has attended and other matters affecting the Committee. Minutes:
Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses: None.
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chairman provided the following oral report:
Changes to the Organisation of Surrey’s Hospitals
Significant changes are taking place in the organisation of our Surrey hospitals driven by the need to improve services to our residents, especially in response to the Keogh recommendations on 7 day working, and at the same time to save money.
We had a presentation at our previous Meeting on 30 May 2014 on the proposed acquisition of Heatherwood & Wexham Park NHS Foundation Trust (FT) by Frimley Park NHS FT.
Today we have a presentation on the proposed merger of Ashford and St Peter’s NHS FT and Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS FT.
The future of Epsom Hospital is unclear at the moment. Those Members who visited Epsom on 12 March 2014 will recall that there is good evidence to suggest that the combination of Epsom and St Helier Hospital is capable of prospering under the requirements for change. However, there may be alternative proposals coming forward.
East Surrey Hospital is seeking NHS FT status. We had a presentation on this topic at our 9 January 2014 meeting.
Department of Health Guidance on Health Scrutiny
In the last few days we have received the official Department of Health Guidance for Health Scrutiny relating to the Local Authority (Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Health Scrutiny) Regulations 2013. These have been sent to all HSC Members. These Regulations came into force on 1 April 2013.
It would seem sensible to spend some time studying the Guidance before deciding on next actions.
Health Scrutiny Event – 19 June 2014
Our Health Scrutiny Event held after one year of operation of this Health Scrutiny Committee (HSC) was well attended. Senior representatives of 6 of the 7 NHS Trusts; 2 of the 3 Community Care providers; all 6 CCGs; the Surrey Health and Wellbeing Board and 12 of the 14 Members of the HSC were amongst those present. The objectives of the event was to review what is going well in the health system in Surrey and what the challenges are and hence to set the scene for the work of the HSC in the coming year. We will be considering the output from the meeting this afternoon.
There was plenty of time for informal networking which many of the attendees reported as being valuable and something that they would like to repeat.
At the event several Members expressed interest in learning more about the CCGs and about the Community Care providers. I have therefore approached most of these organisations asking particularly for information about their public involvement events, since it is one of our duties to assure that the public is adequately involved in planning services. The response from the CCGs and the Community Care providers has been enthusiastic so I hope that Members will take up the opportunities. The first event in my diary is the AGM for North West Surrey CCG on ... view the full minutes text for item 39/14 |
|
Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses:
Helen Atkinson, Director of Public Health Julie Nelson, Public Health Lead (Nutrition) Michael Gosling, Cabinet Member for Public Health and Health & Wellbeing Board
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Public Health Lead for Nutrition explained that obesity was a very complex issue which could not be solved with a single service. It was however everybody’s business to consider. In Surrey the level of childhood obesity was lower than the national average, but there were pockets such as Spelthorne where the rate was higher than the national average.
2. Three tiers of obesity services focus on prevention, lifestyle and clinician led services. The third tier, the Committee were informed, had recently been agreed to be led by the CCGs and that planning for these services was in the very early stages. There are some tier 3 services currently available; however, there is not consistency across the county and there are gaps.
3. The main area of focus was on prevention work, particularly with young children, both on a county and borough/district level. However, Public Health commissioned the tier 2 HENRY programme for families with children under 5 to encourage health eating and exercise to ensure that further services were not required by the patient and that they would get used to a healthier lifestyle. Research had shown that if obesity is tackled between 0 – 5 years then the person is more likely to live a healthier lifestyle and that it was important to raise this issue with the parents.
4. The Committee were informed that there was a gap in commissioning of tier 2 services for 5 – 19 year olds, but that Public Health were looking to build up services for this age group.
5. Members raised concerns that school meals encourage a sweet tooth in children and young people and that more work needed to be done to make these meals healthier. The Public Health Lead informed Members that the schools meals programme was very complex, however from January 2015 there would be some significant changes implemented within the programme which included updated school food standards which local authority maintained schools were required to follow. Furthermore, local authority maintained schools no longer had vending machines on the school sites. However, concern remained as academies and free schools were not required to follow the nutritional standards.
6. The Committee discussed the need for an ethos change with regards to healthy living, with people taking more responsibility. However, it was recognised that a single service to tackle obesity would not be sufficient and that targeted work would need to be conducted within deprived areas.
7. Members suggested that there was a need for after school sports clubs to improve healthy living among children. The Public Health Lead informed the Committee that Change 4 Life sports clubs are being rolled out across Surrey by Active Surrey, but these would not be compulsory. It was recognised that these clubs needed to be seen as popular ... view the full minutes text for item 40/14 |
|
|
ACUTE HOSPITALS COLLABORATION
Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses:
Andrew Liles, Chief Executive, Ashford & St Peters Hospitals Giles Mahoney, Director of Strategic Marketing and Business Development, Royal Surrey County Hospital Julia Ross, Chief Executive, North West Surrey CCG Dominic Wright, Chief Executive, Guildford & Waverley CCG
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chief Executive of North West Surrey CCG explained that the commissioners were fully supportive of the acute hospitals finding a way forward to provide services for the residents of Surrey. However, they did have concerns which included; the clinical strategy which was under discussion between the CCGs and acutes, the finances of the transition and the long-term viability, ensuring the performance levels did not drop, ensuring there was appropriate engagement with residents and that strong governance was in place. The Chief Executive stressed that there were no plans for the CCGs to merge and so the merged hospital would have to deliver to two CCGs and navigate the two health landscapes.
2. The Chief Executive of Guildford & Waverley CCG informed the Committee that all the Surrey CCGs were supportive of the merger. Furthermore, he stated that it was important that the hospitals responded to the Keogh Review.
3. The Chief Executive of Ashford & St Peters explained that the two hospitals were of similar size with regards to workforce and budget, and that currently they were stable financially and performing well. The hospitals had been working well in partnership since summer 2013. It was felt that staying as two separate organisations was not an option as continued investment was needed to ensure they responded to patient needs. However, they were not proposing the merger purely on financial grounds as it was felt that there were number of opportunities and benefits to Surrey if the hospitals merged, including providing weekend consultant cover at both hospitals.
4. Members queried whether the proposed merger would increase the catchment area of the hospitals and so draw in more patients. The Chief Executive of the Ashford & St Peters stated that large financial assumptions had not been made on the basis of an increased number of patients, but that they were in discussions with other hospitals regarding patients attending their hospitals for specialist care. Furthermore, there was an ambition to provide renal services at St Peters Hospital and thus start to repatriate services from London.
5. Members were concerned that the proposed merger would marginalise Epsom Hospital and would take away services from the hospital. Furthermore, there was concern that the proposed merger would fail like the proposal with Epsom Hospital. The Chief Executive of Ashford & St Peters assured the Committee that the hospital had been disappointed when the merger of Epsom Hospital had fallen through, though felt that the situation was more positive with Royal Surrey. He further stated that he did not feel that the proposed merger with Royal Surrey would impact upon Epsom Hospital as patients would be unwilling to travel. The Chief Executive informed the Committee that the hospitals would be interested to ... view the full minutes text for item 41/14 |
|
|
HEALTHWATCH STRATEGY REVIEW
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses:
Peter Gordon, Chairman, Healthwatch Richard Davy, Director, Healthwatch Jane Shipp, Engagement Manager, Healthwatch Michael Gosling, Cabinet Member for Public Health and Health & Wellbeing Board
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Chairman of Healthwatch explained that the organisation had not been in shadow form before the regulations came into effect in April 2013 and had therefore only been in existence for just over a year. Within that year a stroke rehabilitation report had been published and received national recognition, the organisation had spoken to 12,000 people, and had been able to establish key themes amongst patient concerns.
2. It has been important within the initial year to develop relationships with the acute hospitals and CCGs, and Healthwatch felt that they had been successful and were now viewed as a credible, trusted partner.
3. Members queried whether the Cabinet Member was content with the Healthwatch contract and whether there were sufficient measurable performance indicators. The Cabinet Member informed the Committee that Surrey County Council commissioned Healthwatch, but that it was an independent organisation and free of any political influence. The contract was due to be retendered at the end of 2014 and a matrix of contract expectations were attached as it was important that Healthwatch was listening to public concerns and championing these within the health environment. The Cabinet Member felt that Healthwatch Surrey was advancing at the same speed as other Healthwatch organisations nationally.
4. The Chairman of Healthwatch stated that it was important that the organisation was measured, and informed the Committee that there were quarterly contract monitoring meetings and that the organisation had agreed to be audited to ensure it was performing well.
5. Members suggested that it was important for Healthwatch to be successful in engaging with the public so as to hear their views, and proposed that Healthwatch could work with the Surrey County Council Communications Team to increase awareness of the role of the organisation.
6. Healthwatch stated that they were open to cooperating with the Committee and that a copy of its GP appointment booking report had been sent to the Scrutiny Officer for circulation.
7. The Chairman of Healthwatch informed the Committee that the focus of the organisation within its first year had been to build the infrastructure required while starting to collect the views of health social care consumers in the County but now felt that the organisation was in a better position to listen to and analyse the concerns of the public, and to feed these back to system partners to prompt positive change. The Cabinet Member informed the Committee that a full annual report had been published which explained the work of the organisation within its first year in more detail than provided within the agenda papers.
8. The Chairman of Healthwatch stated that the Board had set some strategic objectives for the organisation. In response to a question regarding the objective of achieving a growing and sustainable business, he indicated that all ... view the full minutes text for item 42/14 |
|
|
RECOMMENDATION TRACKER AND FORWARD WORK PROGRAMME
The Committee is asked to monitor progress on the implementation of recommendations from previous meetings, and to review its Forward Work Programme. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest: None.
Witnesses:
Ross Pike, Scrutiny Officer Jane Shipp, Healthwatch
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee considered the Access to General Practice in Surrey Task Group scoping document, a copy of which is attached to these minutes. Members suggested that the Task Group utilise the work of Healthwatch, especially their research into GP appointment bookings. The Healthwatch officer agreed that the research they had completed would be beneficial to the Task Group.
2. The Committee noted its recommendation tracker and forward work programme.
Recommendations: None.
Actions/further information to be provided: None.
Committee next steps:
1. The Committee to review its recommendations tracker and forward work programme at future meetings. |
|
|
DATE OF NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Committee will be held at 10am on 17 September 2014. Minutes: The Committee noted the next meeting would be held on 17 September 2014 at 10am in the Ashcombe Suite. |