Agenda and draft minutes

There were no declarations of interest made at the meeting.

There were no members of the public or press present at the meeting.

(1) Reference was made to the workshop about “Make Every Contact Count” which takes place at the Town Hall, Rotherham on Monday 16^th September 2013. It was agreed that the Chair and the Vice-Chair should attend this workshop.

(2) It was agreed that Members of the Health Select Commission shall continue to have an agenda briefing session immediately prior to each scheduled meeting.

(3) Members thanked Deborah Fellowes (Scrutiny Manager) for her work in support of the Health Select Commission; this role would now be performed by Scrutiny Officer Janet Spurling.

Consideration was given to the minutes of the previous meeting of the Health Select Commission held on 13th June, 2013.

Resolved:-  That the minutes of the previous meeting be agreed as a correct record.

-        Minutes of meeting held on 12^th June, 2013

Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting of the Health and Wellbeing Board held on 12th June 2013.

The Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing explained the way in which the Health and Wellbeing Board considers and responds to scrutiny reviews about public health issues.

Reference was made to:-

 item S11 (Domestic Abuse Injuries – Legal Aid) and patients’ entitlement to letters confirming that their injuries were consistent with abuse. Members asked that further information be obtained from the Rotherham Foundation Trust about this issue.

(ii) the Commissioning Support Unit merger of services in South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire. Members also requested further information about the implications of this merger for services in the Rotherham Borough area.

Resolved:- That the contents of the minutes be noted.

Further to Minute No. 74(2) of the meeting of the Health Select Commission held on 18th April, 2013, consideration was given to a report presented by the Information Governance Officer concerning Information Sharing Protocols within Rotherham. Members noted that there was an Overarching Information Sharing Protocol (OISP) which was a multi-agency protocol and was used by many organisations within Rotherham as evidence and compliance to Information Sharing best practice.

The submitted report contained an overview of Information Sharing within Rotherham and how it was supported by the OISP.  Members were informed that processes place the service user at the centre of how their information was processed in accordance with their rights to privacy and confidentiality. The report explained the reasons why information is shared and why it was sometimes necessary to share information without obtaining an individual’s consent.

Members discussed the following issues:-

: the way in which organisations decide upon the information to be shared (use of consent and referral forms) and obtaining parents’ consent in respect of information about their children;

: the OISP was one example of best practice; any breaches of information sharing protocols may involve misconduct or illegal conduct;

: the sensitivity of sharing information about children at risk and the rigorous systems which were already in place to ensure confidentiality of information.

Resolved:- (1) That the report be received and its contents noted.

(2) That the work being undertaken to support the multi-agency Information Sharing Protocols within the Rotherham Borough area be noted.

Further to Minute No. 29 of the meeting of the Cabinet held on 19^th June, 2013, Councillor Dalton presented the report which set out the response to the findings and recommendations of the scrutiny review of Autistic Spectrum Disorder in Rotherham. 

This review had been requested by the Cabinet Member for Children and Young People because of the apparent high levels of diagnosis of Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in Rotherham.  This was identified in a report to the Cabinet Member and was explored further in a position paper to the Health Select Commission in July, 2012. It had been agreed at that meeting that a full scrutiny review would be required and this would investigate the steady increase in diagnoses within the last ten years.

The overall aim of the review was to achieve a better understanding of patterns of Autistic Spectrum Disorder in Rotherham, leading to the development of appropriate support and assistance to families affected by it.  It was understood that the review took place in a climate of budget reductions and, therefore, also wanted to look at the potential for more effective use of existing resources.

The four stated objectives of the review were to consider, as follows:-

·                The reasons for the higher diagnosis rates.

·                Services required at diagnosis stage and after.

·                16+ support and transition.

·                Budget implications.

The review was, therefore, structured around these four objectives, with a dedicated meeting held for each one and evidence presented around these four headings. 

Key messages that came out of the review were as follows:-

·                Early intervention and prevention work is key for children with Autistic Spectrum Disorder.

·                Mental health needs of children and adults with Autistic Spectrum Disorder can arise because of the lack of support.

·                Lack of clarity about where the lead of support lies – Education, Health etc.

·                Family and home support is a gap in provision.

·                It is difficult for many parents to make sense of all of the different agencies that are involved in this area of work.

·                There has been significant progress made with this area of work and this needs to continue with clear leadership and direction.

·                To ensure the best outcomes for children and young people with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, parental voice and influence is absolutely crucial.

·                All of the recommendations formed as part of this review were about more effective use of existing resources, achieving better value for money and becoming better organised in delivery of support. It was the view of the review group that there should not be a need for additional resources to implement the recommendations.

Resolved:- (1) That the Cabinet’s response to the Scrutiny Review of the Autistic Spectrum Disorder, as now submitted, be noted.

(2) That all those involved in the review be thanked for their input.

(3) That a progress report on the implementation of the various recommendations of this scrutiny review be submitted to a meeting of the Health Select Commission in six months’ time.

-        report to follow

Further to Minute No. 77 of the meeting of the Health Select Commission held on 18^th April, 2013, consideration was given to a report presented by the Scrutiny Manager providing a summary of and the conclusions from the workshop sessions held between some members of the Health Select Commission and colleagues from the Rotherham Clinical Commissioning Group, which had examined the proposal to create a co-located Urgent Care Centre based at the Rotherham hospital. It was noted that this proposal would involve the closure of the NHS walk-in centre situated at Rawmarsh Road, Rotherham, adjacent to Bailey House. The workshops’ conclusions were:-

(i) There is a strong clinical case for integration of the services, which Members support;

(ii) There are significant concerns about the access issues outlined in the report creating a barrier to the success of the proposals;  and

(iii) There is a less convincing case for co-location and the spending of a large sum of capital funding on another new building.

Discussion took place on:-

: difficulty of access to the proposed co-located services, including the costs of travelling and parking involved when people will have to access these services at the Rotherham hospital; the limitations of bus services, from some outlying areas, to the Rotherham hospital;

: the severe pressures placed upon the Accident and Emergency Unit at the Rotherham hospital;

: difficulties in using the NHS ‘111’ telephone number in order to access emergency care;

: whether there is a sufficiently robust case to spend a substantial amount of money on a new building in which to accommodate the proposed co-located services.

Resolved:- (1) That the report be received and its contents noted.

(2) That, further to the conclusions reached by Members of the Health Select Commission who were part of the workshop meetings, this Select Commission:-

(a) agrees that there is a clinical case to be made in respect of the proposal to create a co-located Urgent Care Centre based at the Rotherham hospital;

(b) opposes the financial case for this proposed co-location, especially in the light of the current financial pressures upon the Rotherham hospital;

(c) notes that the NHS walk-in centre situated at Rawmarsh Road, Rotherham is a relatively new facility, one which is valued and very well used by the public of Rotherham and is in an easily-accessible town centre location; and

(d) expresses concern about the adequacy of the existing car parking facilities at the Rotherham hospital and whether there would be sufficient space available for the additional vehicles generated by visitors to the proposed co-located services;

(e) opposes the intention of the Rotherham hospital to impose charges for car parking upon visitors to the proposed co-located services.

-       Thursday, 12^th September, 2013 at 9.30 a.m.

Resolved:-  That the next meeting of the Health Select Commission be held on Thursday, 12^th September, 2013, commencing at 9.30 a.m.