Agenda item

Purpose of the report: Consultation on substantial developments

To update the Committee on Surrey and Borders Partnership Foundation

NHS Trust’s public engagement and consultation to develop plans for a

second mental health hospital in Surrey.

Declarations of interest:

None.

Witnesses:

Justin Wilson, Medical Co-Director, Surrey and Partnership Foundation NHS Trust

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Medical Co-Director introduced the item and informed the Board. It was outlined that the number of hospital beds required to treat mental health patients had reduced since 2008, as many were been treated at home. This had led to a review of the decision made in 2008, with the consultation focussed on proposals to develop a second hospital. The Board was informed that there a set of options being considered, including a new site in Redhill; a new build at the Cowley unit in Chertsey; or a redevelopment at Epsom general.

2.    It was outlined that the aim for the second hospital was to improve the consistency of care by consolidating resources and creating a centre of excellence in the east of Surrey.  Workshops were being held to consult the public on the proposals over the summer. The Board was informed that further consultation could be a requirement once a final preferred option was identified. The Board queried how the proposals would be funded. It was confirmed that a disposal of assets by the Trust would contribute towards funding.

3.    The Board asked if the police were currently involved in stakeholder meetings as some mental health patients were detained in police cells under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act. The Medical Co-Director highlighted to the Board that there had been a big change in the Section 136 assessment, and that partners had been working very closely with the police to reduce the number of mental health patients detained in cells during assessment. The role of the Crisis Concordant in supporting this work was noted.

4.    The Board asked for information on the security of mental health wards and how confident witnesses were that patents and staff were kept safe. It was outlined that a number of improvements had been made to the two working age adults wards at Epsom hospital, and that changes had been made to procedures in order to managing the risk of absconding. It was highlighted that security was one of the reasons why they hope to build a new state of the art mental health hospital as this would be greatly improved.

5.    The Board was informed that dementia did relate to mental health, but was treated differently as specialist dementia beds were needed. It was highlighted that most dementia patients would be based at home rather than at a specialist mental health provision. The Board was informed that the Trust worked with commissioners and providers to ensure that those with mental health needs were also supported in care home environments. 

6.     A discussion was had around the difficulty of retaining staff in Surrey and the factors that cause this. It was confirmed that workforce location was a factor in the proposals under consideration. A point was raised around geographical issues and how many people were choosing to commute into London.

7.    The Board discussed how the Trust worked to support vulnerable people that desired acute support and treatment. It was highlighted that patients were treated on an individual basis and that discussions were had with them to create appropriate plans of treatment.

Recommendations:

The Board endorses the Trust’s approach to consultation, noting comments regarding the need to extend the consultation into autumn.

It recommends:

·         That a further update with the final proposals for hospital plans is brought to the Board following the consultation