Agenda and draft minutes

There were no Declarations of Interest made at the meeting.

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

(1) Adult and Older People’s Mental Health Transformation

RDaSH have arranged two further public engagement sessions on developing new models of care in Mental Health Services to be held on 10^th May, 2016, at Liberty Church, Station Road, Rotherham S60 1JH.  Full details were available if anyone was interested.

Commissioners Working Together Partnership

Pre-consultation with the public was underway.  The first full meeting would be held towards the end of May.

The link to the website for more information is:

http://www.smybndccgs.nhs.uk/

The minutes of the previous meeting of the Health Select Commission held on 17^th March, 2016, were noted.

Arising from Minute No. 82 (Rotherham Foundation Trust Quality Account), it was noted that:-

-          further information received after the meeting had been included in the Minute regarding performance on processing prescriptions

-          a remainder to those that had not as yet submitted any comments and thanks to those that already had

-          TRFT Governors’ Surgeries – normal communication of the surgeries was through press releases, the TRFT website, social media and referenced in communication messages.  The February session had not been as actively communicated as in the past due to the uncertainty that it would go ahead due to Governor availability.  However, the Trust had held limited surgeries both on the main Hospital site and the RCHC with Governors having the opportunity to speak to patients/visitors/staff and gather feedback

Arising from Minute No. 84 (RDaSH Quality Account), it was noted that the draft document had not yet been circulated to stakeholders for feedback.

Terri Roche, Director of Public Health, and Jacqui Tuffnell, Head of Co-Commissioning, Rotherham Clinical Commissioning Group

Terri Roche, Director of Public Health, and Jacqui Tuffnell, Head of Co-Commissioning, provided an update of the action being taken for each of the Scrutiny Review’s twelve recommendations.

The Review had taken place between September, 2013 and March, 2014, with the aims being:-

-          Establish the respective roles and responsibilities of NHS England and GP practices with regard to access to GPs

-          Ascertain how NHS England oversees and monitors access to GPs

-          Identify national and local pressures that impact on access to GPs – current and future

-          Determine how GP practices manage appointments and promote access for all patients

-          Identify how NHS England will be responding to changes nationally

-          Consider patient satisfaction data on a practice by practice basis and to compare Rotherham with the national picture

-          Identify areas for improvement in current access to GPs (locally and nationally)

Further scrutiny of the initial response from partner agencies had been carried out in January, 2015 and a mini survey with GP Practice Managers undertaken at their Forum meeting in May, 2015.

The majority of the actions in response to the twelve recommendations fell to the Rotherham Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and NHS England.  Many had now been either completed or included within the Interim GP Strategy. There was also a workforce strategy.

Three were aimed at the Health and Wellbeing Board and, although it was clear the Board would not lead specifically on any campaigns, it had a role in bringing partners together to ensure consistent messages were delivered.  One of the ways in which this would happen would be through a revamped website, due to be completed by the end of May, 2016, and a Twitter account now set up to keep the public and stakeholders updated on partners’ activity and health and wellbeing initiatives.

Consideration was given to Appendix 1 which contained the Cabinet response to the recommendations.  Discussion ensued with the following issues raised/highlighted:-

·           Improvements in telephone systems were taking place, for example informing people where they were in the telephone queue and additional capacity at busy times such as 8.00-9:30a.m.

·           Efforts should be made to gain the support of the large number of private sector employers within the Borough to encourage their employees to keep their GP appointments as part of the prevention and care agenda

Prevention formed part of the quality contract and work took place with Public Health in terms of an element of associated funding which was increasing the number of Healthchecks that took place.  Public Health could work with NHS England to make sure members of the public took up the national Health Screening Programme.  Primary Care needed to be supported in the wider sense and may be work with voluntary and community sector who worked with particular groups

·           Are you now confident that all practices were engaging effectively with their patients?  Are there any hotspots around?  Any issues within any individual GP practices?

There were some contracts that had struggled with Patient Participation Groups  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

Rebecca Atchinson, Public Health

Rebecca Atchinson, Public Health, presented an update on the progress to date on the Scrutiny Review’s six recommendations.

The Review had taken place during May and June, 2014, and had identified recommendations which cut across the Council’s Directorates.  The main aims of the Review had been:-

-          To ascertain the prevalence of urinary incontinence in the Borough and the impact it has on people’s independent and quality of life

-          To establish an overview of current continence services and costs and plans for future service development

-          To identify any areas for improvement in promoting preventive measures and encouraging people to have healthy lifestyles

Progress had been challenging due to the changes in staffing within the Council over the last six months as well as technical problems with the uploading of information to the Public Health TV systems since September, 2015.  Plans were now in place to move the activity forwards particularly in the area of prevention and early support agenda.

Rebecca introduced Kristy Barnfield and Joanne Mangnall from the Community Continence Service.

Consideration was given to the Appendix which contained the Cabinet response to the recommendations.  Discussion ensued with the following issues raised/highlighted:-

·           My GP surgery never had their television on

This was really disappointing and a challenge.  As part of Public Health’s wider training attempts were being made to try and integrate the messages into the wider pieces of work that were being carried out.  A different range of ways had to be tried of encouraging both staff and the public to integrate messages that might be challenging and might not be the first thing that came to mind in their consultation with individuals.  As well as Public Health messages, there was currently a piece of work being undertaken in recognising the different types of roles there were in GP practices other than a GP to be shown on televisions in surgeries. It was a missed opportunity if practices were not turning on their screens

·           Did the incontinence card give access to a toilet that shopkeepers may have?  Was there any feedback on how successful it had been?

It was an alert card that anyone could carry but it was at the individual establishment’s discretion as to whether they honoured the message on the card.  The disabled toilet access was always by way of the Radar key scheme.  It was known from patients’ report back at clinic that there were certain shops, particularly in places like Meadowhall, that had declined patients the use of their toilets and patients were alerted in subsequent clinics sessions of areas where it might not be honoured.  If a patient had a very severe bladder problem they would be told to use the Radar key, however, the number of disabled toilets was very low.  If someone had a problem with faecal incontinence they would always be guided to use the Radar scheme because they had washing facilities

There were opportunities for the Council to provide information on all of the toileting facilities across  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

Sarah Farragher, Adult Social Care, and Jayne Price, Carers Forum

Sarah Farragher, Adult Social Care, gave the following powerpoint presentation:-

The Carers Strategy

-          The Strategy is being co-produced

-          There are now members of the Carers Forum on the group alongside officers from RMBC, Health and the voluntary sector

-          The Strategy is progressing well and is on track for sign-off at the Health and Wellbeing Board in June

-          Plan is to launch during Carers Week

-          Carers Strategy Group will become the delivery group

-          Carers information booked to be produced

Pledges

-          That every carer in Rotherham is recognised and supported to maintain their health, wellbeing and personal outcomes

-          That carers in Rotherham are not financially disadvantaged as a result of their caring role

-          That carers are recognised and respected as partners in care

-          That carers can enjoy a life outside caring

Carers Forum

-          Re-launched in January, 2016 and operating independently of the Council

The Strategy was still in draft form and would be submitted to the June meeting of the Health and Wellbeing Board for sign-off.  It would be launched during Carers Week.

Jayne Price, Carers Forum, gave the following powerpoint presentation:-

Rotherham Carers Forum

-          An independent voice for Rotherham’s informal carers

Over the years:-

-          Long established forum – step up by dedicated and enthusiastic carers and professionals

-          Been actively involved in supporting carers: meetings, information, Carers’ Week, Carers’ Rights Day etc.

-          Changes over the years e.g. bases, officers

-          Partner groups developed e.g. Carers 4 Carers, Rotherham Parents Forum Ltd. and Lost in Transition

Forum

-          The Forum was a successful group which provided a place for carers to meet, listen to guest speakers, share experiences and provide a platform for informal carers

-          Health and Wellbeing partners provided the resources for the Carers’ Co-ordinator at Carers’ Corner

Recent Challenges

-          In 2014 the Carers’ Co-ordinator resigned from RMBC

-          Carers’ Corner relocated to the RAIN building

-          Where was the Constitution?

-          No available assets

-          Low attendance

-          Many people believed that the Forum had folded

Challenges

-          “Challenges are what makes life interesting and overcoming them is what makes live meaningful”

Big Task Ahead

-          The Forum needed a Constitution

-          Assets needed to be freed up and a new bank account opened

-          The status needed to be clarified as independent

-          The word needed to be out that we are still in business

Hard work paid off

-          Interim Officers were elected as a Steering Group

-          An interim Constitution was adopted

-          A new bank account was opened

-          We managed to get a cheque re-dated

-          We had a fantastic re-launch with great feedback

-          Our first funding bid has been successful

Where are we now

-          Monthly meetings with full agendas

-          We are a ‘critical friend’ and ‘co-productive’

-          Working with partners e.g. RMBC, Crossroads especially Carer Resilience, Alzheimer’s Society, Rotherham Clinical Commissioning Group, Barnardo’s Young Carers, Age UK Rotherham, Carers 4 Carers, Rotherham Parents Forum Ltd.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

In accordance with Minute No. 65 of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board, Paul Theaker, Operational Commissioner, Children and Young People’s Service, and Ruth Fletcher-Brown, Public Health Specialist, reported on the current progress of the Scrutiny Review’s twelve recommendations.

A full Scrutiny Review had been carried out by a sub-group of the Health and Improving Lives Select Commissions between September, 2014 and March, 2015. 

NHS England’s Future in Mind Report was published in May 2015 setting out a clear national ambition to transform the design and delivery of a local offer of services for children and young people with mental health needs.  The Rotherham CAMHS Transformation Plan was developed in response to the Report and encompassed all local emotional wellbeing and mental health transformational developments.  The response to the Scrutiny Review was, therefore, aligned to the local CAMHS Transformation Plan and the response to the Scrutiny Review was monitored through the CAMHS Partnership Group as part of the overall plan.

RDASH had been undertaking a whole CAMHS service reconfiguration and would be complete by June, 2016.  The reconfiguration included the establishment of clear treatment pathways, a Single Point of Access and locality workers linked with locality based Early Help and Social Care Teams as well as schools and GPs.

Consideration was given to the Appendix which contained the response to the recommendations.  Discussion ensued with the following issues raised/highlighted:-

-          Part of the Select Commission’s work going forward into the new municipal year could be a deep dive into recommendation 4 (whole school pilot) to ensure it was meeting its target

-          The new Workers were now in place (recommendation 6).  They would be contacting Schools from Friday, 22^nd April and making the links with partners

-          There had been a deterioration in the wait for an appointment.  As of 8^th April, 153 young people were waiting for an appointment into CAMHS (recommendation 8).  The target was 95% of young people seen within 3 weeks – 28% at the moment.  There was now a weekly meeting in place with the Assistant Director of RDASH and was monitored on a weekly basis.  Part of the feedback was in terms of some of the reconfiguration work and staff not being in post but was something that the CCG and the Council were looking at very closely

-          Why had that target not been met?  Was there a particular period in the year?  Any reason why that particular month slipped behind the target?

Not particularly.  There were periods e.g. end of school term when a number of referrals came through from schools.  The information received was that it was primarily down to the Service reconfiguration not being in place.  They had employed agency workers until September so even though all staff would be in post, there would be the additional agency workers to deal with the backlog

-          Was there a duplication in cost?  What kind of costs were we talking about?  Once the new staff were embedded the Commission would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 96.

The minutes of the meeting between the Select Commission and Health partners held on 25^th February, 2016, were noted.

No issues had been raised.

Thursday, 16^th June, 2016 at 9.30 a.m.

Resolved:- That the next meeting of the Health Select Commission be held on Thursday, 16th June, 2016, commencing at 9.30 a.m.