Agenda item

Purpose of the Report: to provide the Select Committee with a detailed report on the findings of the Sexual Health Service Task Group’s review into communication and engagement conducted by Surrey County Council and NHS England South commissioners during the development and implementation of an integrated Sexual Health and HIV Service for Surrey.

Declarations of Interest:

An interest was declared by Mr Bill Chapman who informed the Chairman that he was a friend of Mr Stephen who would be providing a statement to the Committee as a representative of the Blanche Heriot Unit Patients’ Group.

Witnesses:

Stephen Fash, Blanche Heriot Unit Patients’ Group

Ruth Hutchinson, Surrey County Council

Sinead Mooney, Chair of the Sexual Health Services Task Group.

Matthew Parris, Healthwatch Surrey

Sue Whiting, NHS England Specialised Commissioning

Key points raised during the discussion:

1. The Committee received individual statements from Stephen Fash, Matthew Parris, Ruth Hutchinson and Sue Whiting in response to the findings of the Sexual Health Services Task Group. These statements are attached as Annex 2 to these minutes. A written statement from Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust in response to the Sexual Health Service Task Group’s recommendations was also tabled at the meeting and is attached as Annex 3 to these minutes.

2. An introduction to the report was provided by the Chair of the Sexual Health Services Task Group, Mrs Sinead Mooney. The Committee was informed that the Task Group was asked to review communication and engagement undertaken by Surrey County Council (SCC) and NHS England (NHSE) during the development and implementation of an integrated Sexual Health and HIV Service for Surrey. Members heard that the Task Group had conducted a detailed review and Mrs Mooney thanked her fellow Task Group Members, Mr Nick Darby and Mr John O’Reilly, for their commitment and contribution to the work of the Task Group. The review had incorporated evidence from a wide-range of sources to inform its findings including from patients, stakeholders and commissioners. Mrs Mooney expressed her thanks to all those who had contributed evidence to the Task Group’s review.

3. Mrs Mooney acknowledged shortcomings in the evidence collected by the Task Group particularly regarding the number of patients who had contributed to the review. The Committee heard that that the number of patients who had been interview was low but emphasised that the views and information provided by those service users who had spoken to the Task Group had made a significant contribution to the report. Mrs Mooney stated that there was shock regarding the closure of Genito-Urinary Medicine (GUM) clinics among those patients and stakeholders who had provided evidence to the Task Group highlighting a lack of knowledge about the review of Sexual Health and HIV Services undertaken by SCC and NHSE.

4. The Chair of the Task Group advised the Select Committee that the aim of the recommendations was to support commissioners in communicating and engaging with patients and stakeholders around future reconfigurations in service delivery. Mrs Mooney was encouraged that commissioners had committed to addressing the concerns outlined within the Task Group report within their statements to the Committee.

5. Mr Nick Darby, a Member of the Sexual Health Services Task Group, endorsed the comments made by Mrs Mooney and stressed the importance of ensuring that the Task Group’s findings were taken forward and embedded within SCC and NHSE’s commissioning processes in the future. These comments were echoed by Mr John O’Reilly, another Member of the Sexual Health Services Task Group.

6. The Committee welcomed the report acknowledging that it represented the culmination of a great deal of work by the Task Group. Committee Members highlighted that there had been deficiencies in a number of consultation exercises that had been undertaken by SCC. It was suggested that the Task Group’s findings report should be applied whenever the Council is reconfiguring services and that this should be taken forward by SCC’s political leadership. Particular reference was made to recommendation iv which suggested placing contractual obligations on providers to communicate and engage with patients in instances where they are exiting a contract which was felt to be a particularly significant recommendation.

7. An amendment was proposed to recommendation viii of the Task Group report which was agreed by the Committee. It was highlighted that NHSE Specialised Commissioning and SCC would have 28 days to provide a written response to the recommendations from the date that the agreed recommendations were circulated to commissioners.

Actions/further information to be provided:

None

RESOLVED: That;

The Health Integration and Commissioning Select Committee:

1. recommended that Surrey County Council adopts clear expectations for engagement when assessing local need that requires commissioners to:
   1. review insights captured through methods of public and patient participation so that commissioners can assure themselves that they have received meaningful feedback from a broad cross section of patients and the public; and
   2. review stakeholder mapping processes to ensure that all key partners are given the opportunity to engage from the beginning of the commissioning cycle. This includes utilising established forums such as the Health and Wellbeing Board and CCG Clinical Executives;

2. recommended that the market engagement stage of the Council and the NHS’s respective commissioning cycles facilitate dialogue with potential providers within the bounds of the Public Contract Regulations 2015 to give commissioners an insight into the challenges of implementing a particular service specification to allow these to be mitigated where possible;

3. recommended that Surrey County Council and the NHS introduce assurance processes to provide certainty that information contained within tender documentation is accurate;
4. recommended that commissioners and providers, both incoming and outgoing, are involved in developing a central communications plan for informing patients about options for their ongoing care when communicating future changes in service delivery;
5. recommended that NHS England Specialised Commissioning and Surrey County Council require user testing of key points of access into commissioned services to ensure that these are accessible and fully operational;
6. requested that a copy of the Central and North West London’s Communications Plan is shared with the Health, Integration and Commissioning Select Committee for review by the end of August 2018;
7. agreed to confirm close adherence by commissioners to Healthwatch’s five principles for good engagement when reviewing future changes to service delivery.
8. agreed to review steps taken by Surrey County Council and the NHS to implement these recommendations made by the Task Group and reports these publicly. This includes monitoring delivery against CNWL’s action plan for improving communication and engagement with patients, potential patients and stakeholders as outlined in recommendation vii above as well as reviewing performance against the delivery of the Sexual Health and HIV Service contracts in six months’ time.