Agenda item

 

This item is to receive an update from Rotherham Place Partners in relation to how the NHS 10 Year Plan translates into the Rotherham context, including implications for Neighbourhood Health Services.

 

 

 

This item was to receive a presentation from Rotherham Place Partners in relation to how the NHS 10 Year Plan translates into the Rotherham context, including implications for Neighbourhood Health Services.

 

The Chair welcomed Joanne Martin, Programme Lead, Transformation and Delivery at SY ICB, Simon Langmead, Clinical Director for Rotherham Central North Primary Care Network, Bob Kirton, Managing Director of TRFT, Ian Spicer, Executive Director of Adult Care, Housing and Public Health in the absence of Emily Parry-Harries, Director of Public Health and Anthony Fitzgerald, Place Director for Rotherham at SY ICB (South Yorkshire Integrated Care Board) to the meeting and invited Joanne Martin to introduce the presentation.

 

The Programme Lead, Transformation and Delivery at SY ICB introduced the report, explaining that the neighbourhood health framework, published in March 2026, formed a central delivery mechanism for the Government’s National Health Service (NHS) 10 Year Plan and set out a clear national expectation for how services should be delivered going forward.

 

It was emphasised that, for Rotherham, the approach did not represent a radical departure from existing practice in Rotherham, but instead built upon established place-based and locality working, including alignment with the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) and existing community insight work. However, the framework formalised expectations and introduced greater clarity regarding roles, governance and accountability, particularly for the Place Board and the Health and Wellbeing Board.

 

Members heard that Neighbourhood Health aimed to ensure that the majority of people’s care needs were met closer to home through integrated, multidisciplinary teams operating across Primary Care, Community and Mental Health services, Adult Social Care, Public Health and the Community and Voluntary Sector, working collectively as a single system rather than in organisational silos.

 

It was clarified that this did not involve removing all hospital based care but instead sought to shift activity, where appropriate, towards community settings with a strong emphasis on prevention, early intervention and addressing the wider determinants of health. This approach was described as particularly important in Rotherham given the prevalence of health inequalities, long-term conditions and pressures on Urgent and Emergency Care.

 

The presentation highlighted that Neighbourhood Health was now a mandated operating model rather than an optional approach, with systems expected to demonstrate delivery against five national minimum goals relating to:

 

·       Outcomes

·       Health Inequalities

·       Patient Experience

·       Urgent and Emergency Care performance

·       Staff Experience

 

Whilst these goals were already familiar, it was noted that delivery at neighbourhood level would now be the primary mechanism for achieving them, requiring clearer alignment between local arrangements, performance reporting and governance structures.

 

Members were informed that the framework identified three priority areas for reform over the next three years:

 

·       Improving access to routine care, particularly general practice and community services

·       Strengthening proactive and preventative care through the use of population health data

·       Developing alternatives to hospital care in order to reduce avoidable admissions

 

Although much of this work was already underway locally, the framework required a more consistent and coordinated approach at neighbourhood level, alongside clearer accountability for delivery and outcomes.

 

Implementation would be phased, with an initial focus in 2026–2027 on delivering tangible improvements within existing structures, followed by more formalised neighbourhood models, commissioning arrangements and funding approaches from 2027 onwards.

 

The Commission heard that the framework also introduced significant shifts in roles and responsibilities across the system. Integrated Care Boards (ICBs) would move away from detailed operational oversight towards a strategic commissioning role focused on population outcomes, investment decisions and system assurance, with greater emphasis on population health management and reducing health inequalities.

 

Local authorities were positioned as co-leaders of Neighbourhood Health, with an enhanced role in prevention and addressing wider determinants such as housing, employment and social inclusion, while Health and Wellbeing Boards would provide strategic leadership and democratic accountability, ensuring alignment with the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment and Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy.

 

It was further reported that provider organisations would be expected to move away from delivering isolated services towards collective accountability for outcomes across neighbourhood populations, working as integrated teams and focusing on outcomes and experience rather than activity levels alone. In this context, provider leaders would play a key role in redesigning pathways, improving integration and ensuring that care was delivered in the most appropriate setting, with hospital care used only where necessary.

 

The role of the Rotherham Place Board was described as central to delivery, with responsibility for ensuring that Neighbourhood Teams were established, that organisations were working as a single system, and that barriers to integration were addressed. The Health and Wellbeing Board, by contrast, would focus on strategic oversight, ensuring that neighbourhood delivery aligned with local priorities and reduced health inequalities, whilst holding partners to account for outcomes rather than managing operational delivery. The importance of strong alignment, shared data and effective communication between these governance structures was emphasised to avoid duplication and ensure collective accountability.

 

It was reiterated that Neighbourhood Health represented a mandatory national direction of travel and a significant opportunity for Rotherham to build on its existing strengths in partnership working and locality based delivery, provided that governance, leadership and accountability arrangements continued to evolve to support improved outcomes for residents.

 

The Managing Director, TRFT added that in addition to the presentation delivered, supplementary slides had been provided to Members as part of the published agenda pack to illustrate work already undertaken in response to the NHS 10 Year Plan since its publication, noting that the detailed Neighbourhood Health guidance had only been issued recently.

 

The Chair thanked Officers for the comprehensive overview, welcomed the opportunity to build on existing good practice, and invited questions and comments from Members.

 

Councillor Harper queried why a small number of General Practice (GP) services were reflected as ‘amber’ within the data-sharing arrangements and sought reassurance that deprived areas would benefit from the new model, citing the impact of poor quality housing on health and wellbeing.

 

In response, Officers explained that all practices had already signed up in principle and the ‘amber’ status related only to a technical step in activating the system, which was believed to have been resolved since the presentation was prepare, with all practices now being ‘green’. Officers emphasised that the new approach, based on defined neighbourhoods aligned to wards, would allow more targeted responses to local health inequalities, including issues such as poor housing conditions affecting health, by bringing together services to address the wider determinants of health.

 

Councillor Baum-Dixon sought clarity in relation to the alignment of neighbourhood boundaries, the challenges of rurality, and access to services across dispersed communities.

 

Officers advised that neighbourhoods had not yet been finalised and that this would be a complex process, requiring alignment across health, social care, housing and other services. It was confirmed that population health data would be analysed at ward and smaller geographic levels to reflect differing needs, including rural isolation and transport barriers, and that future models would need to account for these variations rather than applying a uniform approach.

 

Councillor Fisher asked how success would be measured and how assurance would be provided to Members, as well as how workforce capacity and cultural change would be managed.

 

Officers explained that a range of performance measures were being developed, covering demand, prevention, system flow, workforce wellbeing, and integration across services. It was emphasised that cultural change, integrated team working, and simplifying systems for residents would be central to success, alongside improving patient and staff experience. Officers also highlighted that success would ultimately be judged by improved outcomes and by how residents experienced more joined-up and accessible services.

 

Councillor Fisher queried how funding would be shifted from acute hospital care to community provision, maintaining accountability.

 

Officers acknowledged that no additional funding was available and that the programme required better use of existing resources. Examples were provided of initiatives already reducing demand on hospitals, such as ‘hospital at home’ services, virtual wards, and mobile diagnostic services, which avoided admissions and improved outcomes. It was further explained that current funding models did not always incentivise such approaches and that future commissioning arrangements would need to move towards pooled budgets and outcome based funding across organisations.

 

Councillor Clarke raised concerns about how prevention and community-based services would operate in areas where infrastructure was lacking, particularly where residents were unable to physically access local facilities.

 

Officers responded that the model would not rely solely on residents travelling to neighbourhood hubs, but would include flexible delivery tailored to individual needs, including services delivered in people’s homes. It was emphasised that the approach would require more personalised responses and stronger multidisciplinary working to address practical barriers and ensure that vulnerable residents were not excluded.

 

Councillor Yasseen expressed concerns regarding the scale of the proposed reform given the lack of detailed implementation plans, unclear neighbourhood definitions, and the absence of additional funding. They acknowledged that the framework represented a major system change but that detailed implementation plans were still being developed following recent national guidance and whilst welcomed, required careful planning and execution.

 

Officers emphasised that the current position focused on direction of travel rather than finalised design, and that further detail, including neighbourhood mapping and delivery models, would be developed over time. They also recognised financial pressures across the system, noting that efficiencies would be required through reducing duplication and focusing investment on prevention rather than hospital care, which was considered both costly and less effective for long-term outcomes. It was also emphasised that the programme was at an early stage within a 10 Year Plan, and that a phased approach would be taken to avoid rushed implementation. Officers highlighted the importance of engaging with communities, testing models, and focusing initially on priority areas to establish effective approaches before wider rollout. It was also noted that strong partnership working across organisations in Rotherham placed the area in a favourable position to deliver the programme successfully, hence its inclusion in the 43 prioritised areas.

 

Councillor Yasseen raised broader points regarding accountability and the increased role of local governance, and expressed concerns that residents would look to Elected Members for resolution of issues arising from the Neighbourhood Health model and sought assurances around Member’s being kept informed.

 

Officers acknowledged this and emphasised the need for clear governance arrangements, ongoing scrutiny, and continued Member engagement as the programme developed.

 

Councillor Baum-Dixon highlighted the importance of ensuring services reflected cross-boundary considerations, such as access to services outside the borough for those parts of the borough neighbouring other ICB footprints, and the need to ensure that patient voice and engagement, including representation of seldom-heard groups, remained central to the development of neighbourhood health services and encouraged Place partners to keep these issues in mind as work progressed.

 

The Chair thanked Officers for the presentation, considered responses and looked forward to progress being made.

 

Resolved:-

 

That the Health Select Commission:

 

1. Noted the contents of the presentation and the update provided.

 

2. Requested that, as with the roles of the Place Board and Health and Wellbeing Board, the role of Health Select Commission be clearly defined and agreed at the earliest opportunity to ensure that focussed outcome driven scrutiny can be appropriately framed and scheduled in line with delivery plans and timelines.  The specific details and timeline for completion of this subsequent scrutiny activity would be agreed at a suitable stage once greater clarity was achieved.

 

3. Requested that the Commission be sighted on and included in any engagement, consultation and co-production work supporting the Neighbourhood Health transition, including considerations around neighbourhood footprints.