Agenda item

The report gives an overview of progress, risks and issues relating to the Health and Wellbeing Strategy implementation plans, including areas where progress is being made, as well as highlighting several projects which require a Senior Project Lead to progress. The report also includes the outcomes dashboard, which is now public and is due an annual refresh in June to review any changes to outcomes.

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)

Ruth Hutchinson - Interim Director of Public Health (SCC)

Witnesses:

Amy Morgan - Policy and Programme Manager for Health & Social Care Integration (H&Sci) (SCC)

Key points raised in the discussion:

1. The Priority 1 sponsoroutlined the key issue across all three priorities as included in the annex on project diagnosis highlighting several projects which were missing a Senior Responsible Owner (SRO) to progress. One Red rated area without an SRO was Surrey-wide cardio-vascular diseases (CVD) prevention and the overall CVD prevention approach had not been agreed across partners.
2. The project diagnosis was a vital health check on various key projects and successes in Priority 1 included:

-          increasing the local uptake of childhood immunisations to 95% of the population which wasreached in two weeks.

-          a Planning and Health Forum was established in which health and planning officers met to help embed health and wellbeing into planning policies.

-          regarding Surrey Adults Matter, an approach had been agreed with all key system partners and work was beginning with frontline agencies. A newly recruited Senior Partnership Manager would aid that area.

3. He noted that although there were many professionals working hard across all three priorities, it was difficult to identify SROs to take on specific projects and the priority sponsors were working closely with the Policy and Programme Manager (H&Sci) on the matter.
4. The Priority 2 sponsorsimilarly stated that it was difficult to identify SROs in some areas within that priority.He summarised the current progress on:

-          the recent Surrey Mental Health Planning meeting composed of system partners across Surrey Heartlands and Frimley Health ICS aligning mental health with the Surrey Health and Wellbeing Strategy.

-          the draft First 1000 Days Strategy was being finalised and would shortly be shared with system partners for feedback.

-          the Dynamic System Purchasing Arrangements were established for Supported Accommodation aiding supported living for people with a mental health problem.

-          Pocket Parks which were small plots of land often in urban spaces which provide green spaces to aid wellbeing physical and mental health of the communities using them, supported by the Royal Horticultural Society Garden Wisley and initiatives in Epsom and Ewell.

5. He explained that a key risk within the priority was developing community resources to support a consistent Surrey-wide approach to social isolation. Projects included work on social isolation in Surrey Downs, a mental health centre of excellence in Woking and Social Prescribing intergenerational mentoring pilots in Guildford and Waverley which secured a funding of £750,000. Those pilots were volunteer led in which volunteers spent time with those over 65 who sought company.The Priority 3 sponsor and Chief Executive of Elmbridge Borough Council indicated that he would be the SRO for social isolation.
6. The Chairman highlighted the Council’s countryside offer regarding wellbeing provision and the Community Foundation for Surrey which provided financial support for local familiesand stated that the Council’s lead regarding the Foundation was the Cabinet Member for Community Safety, Fire and Resilience in conjunction with the High Sheriff of Surrey.
7. The Priority 3 sponsornoted that a major challenge was the joining up of and how to ensure ownership of the focus areas without increased governance.He welcomed the merger with the Community Safety Board as it would simplify work streamsas their respective priorities would be combined, he noted the large scope for inter-generational mentoring which was sporadicand highlighted the linkages with the Employment and Skills Board to utilise the Apprenticeship Levy more fully as in some employers only used 10% of it.The Chairman noted that nationally businesses were spending only 25% of the Levy, a commission for economic development was convened with big leaders in business to assess better utilisation of the Levy.
8. The Chairman commented on the difference between economy in the east from the west of the county and the need to retain current businesses before attracting others as well as identifying ways to increase employment in the east. The Priority 3 sponsor discussed that Surrey as a whole needed to change to become more modern and connected to ensure that whole generations were not excluded.The Chairman added that the county must serve older and younger generations alike, rather than provisioning for the older demographic.
9. A Member of the Board stressed the importance of ensuring the ownership of priorities and as Cabinet Member for Adults and Public Health at the Council, she pledged to work with the Priority 1 sponsor so that an SRO could be identified to address fuel poverty. She raised concern that no SROs were identified for the focus area within domestic abuse, but noted that she was working in conjunction with the Independent Chair and the Executive Director for Children, Families, Lifelong Learning and Culture on the matter. AMember of the Board added that officers from Surrey Police were working on those focus areas concerning domestic abuse.
10. The Interim Director of Public Health discussed the outcomes dashboard of high level measures which was composed of the 38 metrics agreed by the Board. She noted that it was live on Surrey-i and the Healthy Surrey website and it mapped the metrics in relation to the three priority areas and the KPIs were measured every quarter.
11. In response to a Member of the Board’s queryconcerning areas such as CVD that had not identified an SRO, a Member indicated that she had knowledge of who might be a suitable SRO for CVD. The Chairman thanked the priority sponsors and volunteers to be SROs and replied that outstanding SROs would be identified and the current KPIs provided a clear baseline for the Board moving forward. The Policy and Programme Manager noted that there was a recent workshop considering the Board’s KPIs earlier on week to identify SROs and most would be in place for June.

RESOLVED:

The Health and Wellbeing Board members:

1. Agreed the Senior Responsible Owners (SROs) for the project areas and would assist in identifying SROs for the outstanding areas.
2. Committed to engagement between the team coordinating the delivery of the Health and Wellbeing Strategy and those developing local plans at place in your organisations.
3. Ensured all local ICP plans and District and Borough Health and Wellbeing Strategies were aligned to the strategy priorities.
4. Ensured delivery of the strategy met the needs of the target populations through interventions to tackle health inequalities and the wider determinants of health.

Actions/further information to be provided:

Board members would assist in identifying Senior Responsible Officers for the outstanding focus areas and Members who pledged to be SROs would continue to work closely with the Policy and Programme Manager (H&Sci) and the Public Health team.