Agenda item

This report provides the latest summary of the programmes engaged in implementing the Surrey Health and Wellbeing Strategy.

Witnesses:

Ruth Hutchinson - Director of Public Health, SCC

Phill Austen Reed - Principal Lead – Health and Wellbeing, SCC

Key points raised in the discussion:

1.    The Director of Public Health (SCC) noted that:

-        the update provided the high-level detail of the delivery of the programmes, working closely with the Senior Responsible Officers (SROs) to ensure alignment with the Priority Populations and Key Neighbourhoods; and ensuring impact on the ground to improve health inequalities.

-        attention was given to the programmes where there could be a collaborative focus and it was recognised that there were other programmes underway across the health and care systems which had an impact on the three Priorities.

2.    The Principal Lead – Health and Wellbeing (SCC) noted that:

-        the Summary Implementation Plan set out the leads and partners engaged with on the 41 programmes so the risks could be identified and addressed; a logic model was used to understand the inputs and the outputs on the desired outcomes within the Strategy and resources targeted to maximise impact.

-        the impact indicators for the Priority Populations were being developed as part of the draft Health and Wellbeing Index and the next phase would go online in September; having stronger engagement with the SROs would be vital to understand whether the programmes were actively engaging with and targeting those Priority Populations and Key Neighbourhoods.

-        Priority 1: there were mechanisms to go back and ask further questions on the impact indicators and related programmes, to understand what impact was being had. Some of the indicators and related programmes in italics were earlier in their engagement and that had galvanised collective action such as the implementation of the End of Life Strategy.

-        Priority 2: there were connections and overlapping impacts between the programmes in terms of the outcomes such as isolation which was linked to the Green Health and Wellbeing programme and the Mental Health Investment Fund; it was expected that there would be more programmes supporting Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise partners to help reduce isolation.

-        Priority 3: the big shift in the refreshed Strategy last year was the focus on the wider determinants and the Summary Implementation Plan represented a clearer picture of the touch points with the Growth Board and the Greener Futures Board, having joint conversations as well as drawing on the Community Safety Implementation Plans.

-        mobilising with partners in support of the programmes and formulating discussion points would be crucial to help overcome some of the challenges.

-        it was the first time that an outline could be included on the Health in All Policies (HiAP) approach, of which the related programmes cut across the three Priorities; to be reported back to the Board via the Highlight Reports.

-        engagement had been had with the sub-boards and the SROs, and the Board would receive an update every twelve to eighteen months on the progress.

3.    A Board member noted that she could not see performance or metrics data in the report. Regarding Priority 2, outcome 2, impact indicator: ‘Proportion of children receiving a 12-month review with their Health Visitor’, she asked for an update on that and what the challenges were. Regarding Priority 2, outcome 1, programme: ‘Improved Access to Preventative Emotional and Mental Wellbeing Support (Wellbeing Front Door Service Phoneline)’ asked partners how those services were tested and measured in terms of working as intended. The Director of Public Health (SCC) responded that the impact indicators were the metrics of how measurements would be undertaken, whilst the performance was included within the Health and Wellbeing Index dashboard which was updated with live performance information, the link would be included in the Teams meeting chat.

4.    As a supplementary on the above the Board member reiterated her second question wanting to hear from providers on the Board as to what the checks and balances were regarding the capacity of the Wellbeing Front Door Service Phoneline. The Vice-Chair noted that there was a regular commissioning performance review with the mental health providers. She noted that Surrey and Borders Partnership (SABP) did not deliver all the psychological therapies and early intervention services, many of those were delivered by the voluntary sector and other providers. A Board member noted that there were multiple Single Points of Access in both Children’s and Adults across the system. There was not a single metric that measured the ease of access, SABP had its own access data for its services. He would liaise with the Director of Public Health on what the aggregation looks like across all different agencies providing front door services. The Chair noted that the system should know its overall situation.

5.    A Board member referred to the HiAP slide around the summary of Civic / System Level Interventions, whereby programme 4: ‘Air Quality is improved’ was in development. She noted that it would be helpful to have an assurance over the quality of the baseline data and to gauge the consistency of the measures in place across the county, both pre Covid-19 and post Covid-19. As well as incorporating the transitions made to improve air quality: through the Greener Futures team around biodiversity and the environmental policies in Surrey such as the measures in Guildford and Farnham around encouraging people to use electric vehicles; to understand what that trajectory looked like. The Principal Lead – Health and Wellbeing (SCC) noted that it was in development as pre Covid-19 there was a Public Health Lead that was engaged with partners on that, that role was being re-established and would have a collective view identifying what was working well and where additional programmes or consistency might be needed.

Borough Councillor Ann-Marie Barker left at 3.04 pm.

6.    Regarding all the initiatives, the Chair requested that the anticipated reach and the actual reach be provided in terms of the numbers of people that they would impact, what the geographical spread was, whether specific demographics were targeted, what the direction of travel was, how were those being monitored and what the measurements were and the value provided.

7.    A Board member thanked Public Health colleagues for their collaborative approach. She noted the need to connect with education and schools on the opportunities within the Priorities, to use children and young people’s energy to help hold parents and adults to account for their behaviours. For example, regarding Special Educational Needs and Disabilities, some of the indicators and information collected from schools, were good measures in terms of young people's wellbeing which aligned to the Priorities.

RESOLVED:

1.    Recognised the range of current and developing programmes currently within scope of the implementation of the Health and Wellbeing Strategy priorities and outcomes. These programmes are also related to the impact indicators previously shared with the board (see related Health and Wellbeing Board papers above).

2.    Recognised the progress made in highlighting the range of programmes that focus resource on Priority Populations including the Key Neighbourhoods.

3.    Supported the continued collaborative oversight of programmes alongside action to address barriers and challenges within the three priorities through:

i.   the Prevention and Wider Determinants Board (Priority One and Priority Three) and

ii.  the Mental Health: Prevention and Oversight Delivery Board (MHPODB) (Priority Two) (See Appendix 4 for actions in its first year’s progress report).

4.    Would raise any obvious or significant omissions with the Health and Wellbeing Programme team via publichealth@surreycc.gov.uk and the relevant senior lead for follow up.

Actions/further information to be provided:

1.    The Director of Public Health (SCC) will include the link to the Health and Wellbeing Index dashboard in the Teams meeting chat.

2.    The Board member (Graham Wareham) will liaise with the Director of Public Health on what the aggregation and access data looks like across all different agencies providing front door services via different access points; with a focus on the programme: ‘Improved Access to Preventative Emotional and Mental Wellbeing Support (Wellbeing Front Door Service Phoneline)’.

3.    Regarding all the initiatives, the Principal Lead – Health and Wellbeing (SCC) will follow up the Chair’s request for information on the anticipated reach and the actual reach in terms of the numbers of people that they will impact, what the geographical spread is, whether specific demographics are targeted, what the direction of travel is, how are those being monitored and what the measurements are and the value provided.