Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest made at the meeting.

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

Councillor Wyatt, Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing reported the following:-

(1)        NHS Rotherham Board

            The Board had met for the last time and had migrated to a Cluster level Board which covered the 4 South Yorkshire areas and Bassetlaw, headed up by Andy Buck.

            The Cluster Commissioning Group was to meet for the first time on 3^rd October.

(2)        Health and WellBeing Board

            The Board was to hold its first meeting on 21^st September.

(3)        Public Health Annual Report

            The report was to be considered by the Cabinet on 21^st September.

(4)        Health Inequalities Summit

            Work had already commenced at the Rotherham Show (see Minute No. 17).

The minutes of the previous meeting held on 14^th July, 2011, were noted with the addition of Mr. Scholey in attendance and the apologies of Councillor Beck and Mr. Wells.

(1)       Health, Welfare and Safety Panel

            One Member plus a substitute

            Meets quarterly on a Friday

            (next meeting on 23^rd September)

(2)       Recycling Group

            One Member

            Meets quarterly on a Tuesday at 10.00 a.m.

            (next meeting 20^th September)

Resolved:-  That the Select Commission be represented on the following Groups as follows:-

Health, Welfare and Safety Panel

Councillors Wootton and Dalton (substitute)

Recycling Group

Councillor Jack

- Kerry Rogers, Chief of Corporate and Legal Affairs, NHS Foundation Trust

Representatives of NHS Foundation Trust were in attendance to give an overview of the consultation currently taking place regarding the Park Rehabilitation Centre at Badsley Moor Lane, Rotherham.

Patients, users and staff of the Centre had been encouraged to complete a survey which had closed on 11^th June together with meetings with users and groups using the facility.

As part of the Trust’s recent savings consultation announced early in March, the services provided from the Centre were highlighted as 1 of the further areas for review at a later date of how best to provide services for NHS patients and other service users.

The Park Rehabilitation Centre was an expensive facility and was currently costing £100,000 a year over and above the resources available to the Trust.  Along with all other public sector organisations, the Trust was facing massive efficiency savings and, in light of the funding now being made available, the Trust had a duty to examine how NHS services could be provided in a more cost effective manner and ensure that NHS resources were not diverted to subsidise non-NHS services.

Discussion then ensued with the following issues/points raised:-

-        The £100,00 was predominantly made up of staffing and energy costs

-        Customers highly valued the facility and were prepared to travel some distance to use it

-        The site was accessible with ample parking – this would be a problem if the services were transferred to the District General Hospital as well as the distance a user would have to walk into the Hospital having parked their car

-        There was no suitable alternative hydrotherapy pool in the Borough.  The water was warm and had the most appropriate means of access

-        It was a genuine review of the services delivered at the Centre with the aim of listening to service users as to why they used it and did not use other facilities.  The review also looked at non-NHS users and what other facilities there were in the locality

-        The review was not only considering the financial implications but the impact on patients

-        Close work with commissioners to ascertain if anything could be done differently within the Centre

-        There would be a potential saving of £150-200,000 for the Hospital if NHS services were ceased at the Centre but that did not include patients potentially having to access the services elsewhere

-        If more services were put into the building and made a more efficient and financial viable building, it would be contributing to the vision of delivering services closer to home and giving patients the opportunity of choice

-        There were other options available for the site in terms of services.  There was a massive opportunity to look at the way rehabilitation services were actually delivered as they were currently all commissioned separately with separate teams of staff and a degree of duplication.

-        Investigations had taken place into the “covenant” from when the service had transferred from Firbeck but it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

- verbal report by Carol Weir and Rebecca Atchinson, NHS Rotherham

Rebecca Atchison, NHS Rotherham, reported that a Health Inequalities Summit was to be held in response to a Cabinet recommendation when considering the Index of Multiple Deprivation 2010.  The Index had identified that the health of Rotherham communities appeared to have worsened and showed a high percentage of people were within the highest 10% in the country for health issues.  It was felt that a Summit should be held to explore those issues.

In preparation for the Summit, there was a 2 month consultation exercise underway as well as a partnership engagement exercise, of which this Commission was part, to explore some of the reasons for the deterioration. 

The consultation exercise had commenced at the recent Rotherham Show using a hand held survey where 426 members of the public had been asked for their perception of health, their views on health and whether they felt members of the community’s health had improved or worsened.  Approximately 40% felt that the health of the community was getting worse.  When asked what they thought were the main causes they cited lack of money, changes in employment/unemployment and rising food costs followed by stress.  They knew there were health services out there but were not accessing them.

The initial scoping allowed the officers to use the information within the next stage of consultation with Area Assemblies and communities of interest within the next month.

Discussion ensued with the following issues raised:-

-        Importance of looking at the issues for Rotherham

-        Usefulness of Ward-by-Ward data

-        The Mormot report was important as it also included how communities felt and operated in terms of solution.  There were things that would help at a local level  to inform how health inequalities were tackled as 1 of the key issues Marmort highlighted was that communities that operated as communities well were the one that addressed health inequalities

-        Members were more than welcome to attend any focus group/community of interest

-        Parish Councils and Voluntary Action Rotherham were also suggested as points of contact

-        It was recognised that health inequalities was very complex and 1 answer would not fit all.  A holistic approach was being taken to identify a whole range of things that may possibly influence and those that could not influence at the current point in time

-        Following the Health Summit, an action plan for the whole Council, PCT and wider partners would be drawn up

The Summit was to be held on 30^th November, 2011.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the report be noted.

(2)  That a further report be submitted as to Rotherham’s position.

- presentation by Linda Phipps, CfPS, and Kate Taylor

Kate Taylor, Policy and Scrutiny Officer, and Linda Phipps, Centre for Public Scrutiny, gave the following powerpoint presentation:-

Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) Programme

-        Programme funded by the Healthy Communities Team at Local Government Improvement and Development

-        To provide early insight into the development of accountability arrangements

-        Consider ways of working between Scrutiny, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Clinical Commissioning Consortia

Project aims: Rotherham

-        To understand new structures and accountabilities within the context of the new health reforms

-        To examine ways in which the Health Select Commission, GPs, Clinical Commissioning Groups and Health and Wellbeing Boards can work together

-        To understand how scrutiny can remain effective in a situation of reduced but more integrated resources

-        To enable Rotherham to demonstrate its leadership in health scrutiny through participation in the next phase of Scrutiny Development Area (SDA) activity

-        To participate in learning activities to capture and share project learning and insight

-        To enhance Rotherham’s own process of scrutiny

Workshop 1: Health and Wellbeing Board Representatives

Stakeholder and Role Mapping

-        Vast number of organisations identified – demonstrating the complexity of the Health and Wellbeing agenda

-        There are a number of ‘layers’ in the structure from local organisations and agencies which Rotherham can control, to those which Rotherham has no control over

-        There needs to be a relationship between other Boards which sat alongside the Health and Wellbeing Board locally

-        Organisations are changing or being re-shaped and although the map may look the same, the roles and responsibilities may change

-        Health Select Commission is “Cat with a Paw” – probing and asking questions about what difference X has made and what could be done differently

Questions raised

-        Health and wellbeing is also about economic wellbeing, regeneration and education – where does this fit in and how does the Health and Wellbeing Board influence these aspects?

-        How do we get private sector (providers) involved; how do we influence them including workplace health?

-        What is the future of joint planning boards – will GP commissioning become the new partner when PCTs are abolished?

-        How does the general public input into the Health and Wellbeing Board?  Is this through GPs/Councillors etc. who already have a relationship with people in communities?

-        How do Safeguarding Boards fit with the Health and Wellbeing Board?

-        How does the Health and Wellbeing Board fit the Local Strategic Partnership, Safer Rotherham Partnership/Adults and Children’s Boards?

-        How will public health be commissioned?  Does there need to be a public health commissioning board?

-        Are we doing enough for young people?

Worksop 2: Members of the Health Select Commission

Structure Processes and Protocols

-        Paul Plsek on good governance – 3 dimensions: structures, processes, patterns

-        Produced table of ‘What is needed’ and diagram to show processes:-

Structures                       

Terms of Reference

§         Is the membership right?

§         Do we have people common to both the Health and Wellbeing Board and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

-           Allocation Options for Funding for Local HealthWatch

            Verbal report by Shona McFarlane, Director of Health and Wellbeing

-           Proposed Changes to Registration for Care Quality Registration

            Verbal report for Shona McFarlane, Director of Health and Wellbeing

Shona McFarlane, Director of Health and Wellbeing reported on the following 2 consultations:-

(1)  Funding Allocation Options for Local Health Watch and PCT Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards

-        Health and Social Care Bill

Local Health Watch – transfer to local authority October, 2010 onwards

PCT Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards from October, 2012

Independent Mental Health Allocates April, 2012

Consultation closes on 18^th October, 2011

-        National Picture

-        Consultation Area 1

Health Watch Allocation – 2 Options

§         Option 1 – Adult population adjusted for area costs (relates to the size of the population)

Local Health Watch option 1 without floor – adult population adjusted for area costs

Local Health Watch option 1 with floor – adult population adjusted for area costs with a minimum payment of £20,000

§         Option 2 – the social care relative needs formula (relates to the relative need of the population)

Local Health Watch option 2 without floor – adjusted to the relative need of the population

Local Health Watch option 2 with floor – adjusted to the relative needs of the population with a minimum payment of £20,000

-        Consultation Area 2

PCT Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards – 3 Options

Identify grant to local authorities based on:-

§         Adult population, adjusted for area costs

§         Adult social care relevant needs formula

§         PCT DOLS caseload data or

§         With or without a minimum allocation of £2,000

Resolved:-  (1)(a)  That the consultation response with regard to consultation area 1 (Health Watch Allocation) be that this Select Commission favours option 2 based on relative need.

(b)  That the consultation response with regard to consultation area 2 (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) be that this Selection Commission favours option 2 i.e. that there should be a minimum allocation to reflect economics of scale and standard minimum costs.

(2)  Proposed Changes to Registration for Care Quality Registration

Resolved:-  (a)  That a sub-group be established consisting of Councillors Jack, Burton and Steel and Russell Wells to consider this consultation.

·              Thursday, 27^th October, 2011 @ 9.30 a.m. at the Town Hall, Moorgate Street, Rotherham

·              Thursday, 8^th December, 2011 @ 9.30 a.m. at the Town Hall, Moorgate Street, Rotherham

·              Thursday, 26^th January, 2012 @ 9.30 a.m. at the Town Hall, Moorgate Street, Rotherham

·              Thursday, 8^th March, 2012 @ 9.30 a.m. at the Town Hall, Moorgate Street, Rotherham

·              Thursday, 19^th April, 2012 @ 9.30 a.m. at the Town Hall, Moorgate Street, Rotherham

Resolved:-  That meetings be held during 2011/12 on the following dates commencing at 9.30 a.m. in the Town Hall:-

27^th October

8^th December

26^th January, 2012

8^th March

19^th April