Agenda item

The report provides an update on Surrey’s Local Outbreak Control (LOC) Plan which was published on 30June 2020 on the council’s website.

The PowerPoint slides used are included as Annex 1

Sponsors:

Ruth Hutchinson - Interim Director of Public Health (SCC)

Witnesses:

Paul Evans - Director of Law and Governance (SCC)

Key points raised in the discussion:

1.    The Interim Director of Public Health provided a summary of the epidemiology, highlighting that Surrey had 3.1 Covid-19 cases per 100,000 population compared to 116 cases per 100,000 population in Leicester. The most recent R value in the South East was 0.92 and the Public Health team received a weekly report on that value.

2.    She noted that soon after the publication of Surrey’s Local Outbreak Control Plan (LOCP), there were national developments such as Leicester’s outbreak. The Plan was therefore iterative in relation to the lessons learnt, legal changes, surveillance, the availability of data at a granular level and it was being constantly tested. The Plan was updated fortnightly and signed-off by the Health Protection Operational Group (HPOG), the most up-to-date version was accessible from the link on the Council’s website. Best practice was also provided from the Good Practice Network.

3.    The Vice-Chairman queried whether there was any information on major disparities on the R value across the county as some local media reports have used that data for sensationalist headlines creating anxiety for residents. In response, the Interim Director of Public Health explained that the R value was published at a regional level as that level of population was needed to be meaningful. Different indicators were used at a more local and granular level based on infection rates and the number of positive tests, which were publicly available on the gov.uk website.

4.    Although a lot of data regarding Covid-19 was available publicly, the Interim Director of Public Health noted that they were awaiting guidance to share greater data - recognising the current data protection agreements.

5.    She highlighted the work of the fourteen Task and Finish (T&F) groups one for each key community and setting focusing on prevention and the actions to take if there was an outbreak. Each T&F group had robust plans in place, recognising the diverse nature of the county and the need for bespoke requirements. National best practice was being woven in as well as the information included in the awaited action cards from PHE.

6.    The Interim Director of Public Health commented that it was key that each of the T&F groups knew their roles and responsibilities, the existing joint local protocols were being tested and the Communications Plan was woven into their work; enabling the identification of any gaps in capacity.

7.    She noted that the work of the T&F groups was moving rapidly, aiming to be completed by the end of July and was overseen by the HPOG. The HPOG also managed the full Covid-19 risk register, as well as the Test and Trace Programme Weekly Delivery Report summarising the key high-level risks and programme delivery status circulated to the Board weekly.

8.    She noted that it was important to align the LOCP work with the Local Resilience Forum (LRF) and the Strategic Co-ordinating Group (SCG) to work with system partners on sharing data and intelligence. In the event of a community outbreak, there would be a desktop exercise on 20 July to test the capability within the LRF and the results would be shared with the Board.

9.    The Director of Law and Governance summarised the legal context noting that:

·         The current legislation available in terms of a localised lockdown, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Leicester) Regulations 2020 which came into effect on 4 July 2020, was created as an urgent order under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.

·         Those Regulations outline that the Secretary of State has to review them every fourteen days and has to terminate them when they are no longer required.

·         They specify the restrictions, exemptions and the specific area defined under the localised lockdown. They specify detailed descriptions of which businesses could remain open, those that must close, any other businesses and exceptions for businesses that can trade but not directly to customers from their premises such as the use of the internet or telephone for takeaway food.

·         They also restrict all holiday accommodation and hotels, include exemptions for places of worship for funerals and the use of community centres for childcare, as well as containing restrictions on the movement on people such as staying overnight where people do not live and a list of reasonable exemptions; there were also restrictions on public gatherings.

·         They provide enforcement powers to the Police and Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) and local authorities can designate those enforcement persons but only in relation to businesses opening and closing. The use of those powers must be proportionate and reasonable.

·         The defined geographic area of the order was detailed by postcode as well as down to individual street level. 

·         The Regulations appeared to be tailor made so they could be reissued to other areas quickly, the Board would have a role in communicating those specific restrictions and exemptions to residents in the event of a localised lockdown.

10.  Responding to a Board member query on enforcement, the Director of Law and Governance noted that Leicester City Council was a unitary authority and assumed that there would be arrangements in the Regulations to delegate enforcement powers in the case of two-tier authorities from the County Council to local environmental and health teams for example at borough and district councils.

11.  The Vice-Chairman highlighted the incident in Reigate and Banstead where thirty refuse operatives had to go into self-isolation. That incident showed the importance of employers’ responsibilities around Test and Trace; and in relation to the LOCP he asked how businesses were being supported to understand their responsibilities.

In response, the Interim Director of Public Health explained that establishing the roles and responsibilities of employers and the local authority in relation to preventative measures and in the event of an outbreak was key, especially as lockdown was easing. Workplaces across the county were diverse, so the work of the T&F groups and the support of the County Council and local public and environmental health teams working in partnership with businesses and workplaces was vital.

12.  A Board member emphasised the importance of the county’s communications with residents and businesses. The Regulations concerning Leicester were detailed and provided the Communications team with a script to inform residents in the event of a local lockdown.

13.  A Board member suggested that the common learning used by health teams when delivering infection prevention and control (IPC) training in care homes and health settings, through short videos for example could be used in business settings highlighting preventative measures and mitigating actions. The Interim Director of Public Health noted that she had a list of high-risk businesses and welcomed contributions from Board members regarding routes into a wide range of businesses which then would be aligned with the Communications Plan.

14.  A Board member noted that most boroughs and districts councils had good distribution lists of businesses that receive weekly newsletters. Another Board member noted that the Royal Surrey's Clinical Lead for Covid-19 Response had received a national award for his work and could help with a video to businesses on infection prevention and control (IPC).

15.  The Interim Director of Public Health concluded that the next steps were the alignment of the LOCP with winter planning including the uptake of the flu vaccine, the ongoing assurance process over the next month incorporating lessons learnt, best practice and the sector led improvement process comparing LOCPs across the county and the South East.

RESOLVED:

The Board noted the next phase of Task and Finish groups for further local planning and provided comments to Public Health.

Actions/further information to be provided:

1.    The results of the desktop exercise to be carried out on 20 July to test the capability within the LRF to respond to localised outbreaks would be shared with the Board.

2.    Board members are welcome to provide support to the Public Health team with routes into businesses to highlight their responsibilities regarding preventative measures and mitigating actions.