Agenda and minutes

Health and Wellbeing Board - Thursday, 4 June 2020 2.00 pm

Venue: REMOTE

Contact: Amelia Christopher

Note: Please access the live stream here: https://surreycc.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcasts

Items
No.	Item
1220.	APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Share this item To receive any apologies for absence and substitutions. Minutes: Apologies were received from Gavin Stephens, Simon White - Liz Uliasz substituted, Dr Andy Brooks - Nicola Airey substituted, Helen Griffiths - Dr Bernadette Egan substituted.
1320.	MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING: 5 MARCH 2020 PDF 152 KB Share this item To agree the minutes of the previous meeting. Minutes: The minutes were agreed as a true record of the meeting.
1420.	DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Share this item All Members present are required to declare, at this point in the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter (i) Any disclosable pecuniary interests and / or (ii) Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this meeting NOTES: • Members are reminded that they must not participate in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest • As well as an interest of the Member, this includes any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the Member is living as a spouse or civil partner) • Members with a significant personal interest may participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial. Minutes: There were none.
1520.	QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS Share this item
1520a	Members' Questions Share this item The deadline for Member’s questions is 12pm four working days before the meeting (29 May 2020). Minutes: None received.
1620.	Public Questions Share this item The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting (28 May 2020). Minutes: None received.
1720.	Petitions Share this item The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting. No petitions have been received. Minutes: There were none.
1820.	HEALTH AND WELLBEING STRATEGY HIGHLIGHT REPORT PDF 167 KB Share this item This paper gives a brief overview of the status of projects in the Health and Wellbeing Strategy implementation plans. Rather than detailing performance as originally intended, it indicates where projects have been impacted by the COVID 19 pandemic leading to delays in some areas. It also highlights where projects are continuing as normal or with a different focus, often as a result of the impact of COVID 19. Additional documents: Item 5 - Appendix A HWBS Implementation Status May 2020 , item 1820. PDF 164 KB Item 5 - Appendix B Surrey Heartlands ICS Recovery Board - Recovery Strategy – current thinking , item 1820. PDF 3 MB Minutes: Witnesses: Phillip Austen-Reed - Principal Lead - Health and Wellbeing (SCC) Sponsors: Rod Brown - Head of Housing and Community at Epsom and Ewell District Council (Priority 1) Giles Mahoney - Director of Integrated Care Partnerships at Guildford and Waverley Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) (Priority 2) Rob Moran - Chief Executive of Elmbridge Borough Council (Priority 3) Key points raised in the discussion: The Chairman explained that due to the challenges posed by Covid-19, the report does not provide a detailed performance of the priorities but rather highlights the impacted areas. The pandemic has brought to the foreground the vulnerabilities faced by many, such as the forty-thousand shielded residents and the increased use of food banks. This had impacted the local priorities and so there was an opportunity to review the delivery of the Health and Wellbeing Strategy against to ensure its priorities remain appropriate and relevant whilst linking with the restoration and recovery work. The Principal Lead - Health and Wellbeing outlined that the status of the projects within the three priorities in rated from red to green, highlighting areas most impacted as a result of reduce to resource or need for greater partnership work. Positively, over half of the projects were continuing and adapting under the current situation, such as: · The creation of a Homeless Multi-Agency Group to support Borough and District Councils in response to the Government directive to provide accommodation to the homeless: - In response, a Board member commented that Covid-19 had magnified the housing shortage issues. All eleven Borough and Districts Councils responded to the directive to accommodate all rough sleepers aiding delivery of the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 and personal plans were being made for people moving on. District and Boroughs were having meetings with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to identify the particular needs of each rough sleeper as well as the solutions and funding needed. Despite some boroughs and districts not having sites to move people on to after the temporary accommodation, the use of Bed and Breakfasts, hotels, the Government preventing evictions in the private sector and triage support from health colleagues on who to prioritise for certain types of accommodation ensured that the directive has been largely met to date. - Responding to a Board member query, it was discussed that there were tensions with commercial hotels putting rough sleepers in temporary accommodation and them wanting to return to business as usual particular in Guildford and Woking. Half of those rough sleepers had been moved out of those hotels in Guildford and assurance was provided that the tensions would be managed in conjunction with MHCLG. There had been a recent more flexible approach by hotels after discussions with MHCLG, who were looking at capital funding and asking councils to look into their procurement solutions, in which Surrey was aided by the LRF. - A Board member was reassured that the Government was working proactively with councils on the long term issues surrounding rough sleepers and would ... view the full minutes text for item 1820.
1920.	ADAPTATION OF APPROACH TO JSNA DURING COVID-19: INTELLIGENCE TO SUPPORT RECOVERY PDF 290 KB Share this item The COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented in its impact on the health and economic situation locally, nationally and internationally so effective recovery will require working differently. Changes to how we work includes how we provide population health intelligence to prioritise partnership actions. This paper sets out a plan for the delivering the early population health intelligence response to support recovery which will inform the refresh of the Surrey Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy and other strategies. The ways in which these proposals relate to previously agreed plans for the refresh of the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment are described. Minutes: Witnesses: Dr Julie George - Consultant in Public Health (SCC) Satyam Bhagwanani - Head of Analytics and Insight (SCC) Key points raised in the discussion: The Consultant in Public Health introduced the report noting that proposals for refreshing the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) and the Social Progress Index were received last by the Board in March. Due to Covid-19, the approach would need to change to deliver the early population health intelligence response to support recovery in order to inform the refresh of the Surrey Health and Wellbeing Strategy and the Board’s priorities for the next six months. The Head of Analytics and Insight outlined the work of the Community Impact Assessment which was split into the following areas: · Overarching Thematic Assessment - different types of impacts on communities, including physical health impacts to those who had contracted Covid-19 or died from it and wider indirect impacts such as mental health, housing and transport issues. · Vulnerability and Impact Assessment - the geographical analysis of impact to understand areas in Surrey most impacted directly as well as indirect effects such as a rise in unemployment and domestic violence. · Place-Based and Population Based Strength and Needs Assessments - engagement with people, focus groups, linking back to communities and target groups in the Health and Wellbeing Strategy. Fifteen priority groups had been shortlisted and were provided to the Recovery Coordinating Group (RCG) and feedback from Board was welcomed. The qualitative approach was being finalised to identify the right people and partners with expertise to liaise with. Dave Hill left the meeting at 2.55 pm The Consultant in Public Health commented that work was already progressing in some of the fifteen priority groups identified, many of which overlap with the priority areas or target populations in the current Health and Wellbeing Strategy. She summarised the findings from the ‘Covid-19: Review of disparities in risk and outcomes’ report recently published by Public Health England, through graphs which were separated by ethnic groups for males and females on the inequality in mortality over the past five years and over the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. There was a large difference in mortality due to Covid-19 in non-White ethnic groups such as Asian, Black Mixed and Other for both men and women - more pronounced in men. A Board member welcomed the Board’s focus on health inequality. He noted that he and the Consultant in Public Health represented the Surrey Heartlands Integrated Care System (ICS) at the NHSE/I Southeast BAME Population Mortality Improvement Board. He reported on examples of good practice elsewhere in the Southeast. These included Slough, where over half of its population belonged to BAME groups, where a population health management approach was being taken and West Sussex who were working through their primary care networks. A Board member highlighted that the grouping of children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) was too wide a priority group. There was evidence that young people with autism found it difficult to deal with Covid-19, which should be ... view the full minutes text for item 1920.
2020.	COMMUNITY SAFETY AGREEMENT INTERIM PLAN PDF 127 KB Share this item This paper provides an update the Board regarding the development of a new Surrey Community Safety Agreement following the merger of the Health and Wellbeing Board and the Community Safety Board in March 2020. Minutes: Dr Claire Fuller left at 3.12 pm Witnesses: Sarah Haywood - Policy and Commissioning Lead for Community Safety, Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) Key points raised in the discussion: A Board member stated that the Community Safety Agreement (CSA) was a statutory document and the interim plan set out how the diverse spectrum of needs and shared priorities within the county will be addressed. The Chairman reminded the Board that as a two-tier authority, Surrey County Council must ensure collaboration with its Borough and District Councils and key partners. A Board membernoted the opportunity to reset strategies during Covid-19 and welcomed the more detailed CSA plan to be presented at September’s Board. In response to a Board member comment on ensuring a joined-up approach across Borough and District Councils, the crucial role of the local Community Safety Partnerships was highlighted. Fiona Edwards left at 3.18 pm Responding to a Board member commentconcerning full engagement with all relevant partners in the county, the Policy and Commissioning Lead for Community Safety (OPCC) responded that she would liaise with the statutory partners and link the detailed plan to the new recovery plans and the RCG’s Community Impact Assessment (CIA). RESOLVED: The Health and Wellbeing Board approved the suggested plans for an interim Community Safety Agreement. Actions/further information to be provided: The more detailed Community Safety Agreement plan will be brought to the September Board, ensuring that the statutory partners have full engagement and linkage with the county’s recovery plans and Community Impact Assessment. RESOLVED:
2120.	HEALTH AND WELLBEING BOARD REVIEW 2020 - PROPOSAL PDF 181 KB Share this item As referenced at the public meeting on 5 March, this paper sets out a suggested new composition and forward plan for the Health and Wellbeing Board to support the Board to function effectively and ensure members have full oversight of the Health and Wellbeing Strategy and their statutory duties as a key partnership decision-making body. Additional documents: Item 8 - Annex 1 - HWBB Information Pack , item 2120. PDF 654 KB Item 8 - Annex 2 - Surrey Health and Wellbeing Board Forward Work Plan 2020 , item 2120. PDF 134 KB Item 8 - Annex 3 - Surrey HWB ToR Final Amended March 2020 , item 2120. PDF 248 KB Minutes: Witnesses: Phillip Austen-Reed - Principal Lead - Health and Wellbeing (SCC) Key points raised in the discussion: The Chairman introduced the report and explained that the Board’s composition had changed as a result of the merger with the Community Safety Board and that Dr Charlotte Canniff (Deputy Chairman) was now the single clinical chair for the Surrey Heartlands Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). The Chairman commented that Surrey’s Health and Wellbeing Board was an important bridge between local government and health and it was wider in its remit than most. He noted the need to review whether it has the right membership to remain inclusive as well as effective. He explained that the proposal was to remove the scheduled private informal business meetings, standing them up if needed for training sessions or workshops. The Board will continue to meet quarterly and in public, starting at 2pm on Thursdays. Moving into the recovery phase of Covid-19 it was important for the Board to offer oversight over the delivery of the county-wide Health and Wellbeing Strategy through the Local Recovery Structures which includes Frimley, Surrey Heartlands and the Local Resilience Forum. The Deputy Chairman commented that the membership review was a good opportunity since the merger of the four Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). The Frimley and Surrey Heartlands collaboration from a health representation side was important. Initially the Board focused on both organisational and place representation to ensure a breadth of knowledge across acute and community trusts, mental health and primary care providers. The Board agreed with the Deputy Chairman’s suggestion of a subgroup seminar to discuss the membership going forward. The Principal Lead - Health and Wellbeing and his team as well as the Board’s Committee Manager would liaise with members on that seminar, seeking comments in order to bring a final membership list for approval to the next Board meeting. RESOLVED: Approved the suggested meeting schedule and the Forward Work Plan (Annex 2). Discussed the proposed changes to membership. Discussed the questions on the governance and leadership role of the Health and Wellbeing Board. Noted the HWBB Information Pack (Annex 1) which provides an overview and discussion points regarding the Board’s statutory responsibilities, implementation of the Health and Wellbeing Board Strategy and its system leadership. Actions/further information to be provided: An informal subgroup seminar will be set up to discuss the Board’s future membership and a final review of the membership will be brought back to the next Board meeting in September.
2220.	DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING Share this item The next meeting of the Health and Wellbeing Board will be on 10 September 2020. Minutes: The next public meeting of the Health and Wellbeing Board will be on 10 September 2020. Any other business: Surrey Local Outbreak Engagement Board The Chairman noted that as part of the national Test and Trace Service launched by the Government on 28 May 2020 to control the spread of Covid-19, each Upper Tier local authority were expected to develop Local Outbreak Control Plans by the end of June. As part of their local plans, councils are expected to have a member led, typically by the Leader of the authority, Local Outbreak Control Board, which will provide political oversight of local delivery of the Test and Trace Service. It was proposed that in Surrey, the Local Outbreak Engagement Board would be a subgroup of the Health and Wellbeing Board, leading the engagement with local communities and be the public face of the local response in the event of an outbreak. The first meeting of the new Board would be held privately on 18 June to review the draft Terms of Reference and approve the initial plan. He noted that the new Board would look to address the challenge of ensuring the rapid collection of local data needed down to postcode level and reinforcing preventative measures such as social distancing, commenting that Surrey was a high-risk area due to its proximity to London. The Interim Director of Public Health explained that as part of the Test and Trace Service, anyone who received a positive test would be contacted by the national team and there will be a process of contact-tracing. Each area was different so they were tasked with writing their own Local Outbreak Plan. Surrey’s proximity to Heathrow and Gatwick Airports did affect the infection rate at the start of the pandemic. She added that communications and surveillance would be essential during the recovery phase. Within the Local Outbreak Engagement Board there would be a Health Protection Board with wide representation across the system. A Board member highlighted that the Council was a Beacon Council delivering excellence in key areas such as governance and was sharing best practice such as how it was working with businesses across the county to ensure that the workforce felt confident about returning to work, collaborating with public transport operators. Ensuring fast localised data down to postcode level was key for targeted partnership activity through the Local Resilience Forum and powers to enforce the required changes in activity in communities were needed from the Government. A Board member noted that Surrey Police had a crucial role to play in reinforcing lockdown restrictions and social distancing and agreed that communications would be fundamental to the recovery work. The Chairman noted an incoming announcement from Government about more Mobile Testing Units (MTUs) and testing centres, with tests to be accessible from General Practices and pharmacies. It was discussed that the link to the Testing Cell within the LRF was key. Update on Healthwatch's role The Chief Executive of Healthwatch Surrey explained that Healthwatch initially took a step ... view the full minutes text for item 2220.