Venue: Conference Room 3 and 4 - Civic Centre. View directions
Contact: Ed Grimshaw, Democratic Support Officer Tel:- 023 8083 2390
Apologies and Changes in Membership (if any)
To note any changes in membership of the Panel made in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 4.3.
It was noted that following receipt of the temporary resignation of Councillor Mintoff from the Panel the Service Director, Legal and Governance, acting under delegated powers, had appointed Councillor McEwing to replace them for the purposes of this meeting.
Election of Vice-Chair
To elect a Vice Chair for the Panel for the Municipal Year 2017-2018.
RESOLVED: that Councillor White be appointed as Vice-Chair for the 2017/2018 Municipal Year.
To approve and sign as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 27 April 2017 and to deal with any matters arising, attached.
RESOLVED: that the minutes for the Panel meeting on 27 April 2017 be approved and signed as a correct record.
Report of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight
Sustainability and Transformation Plan Lead detailing progress made
to date on the core delivery programmes.
The Panel considered the report of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP) Lead detailing progress made to date on the core delivery programmes.
Richard Samuel (Hampshire and Isle of Wight – Sustainability and Transformation Plan Lead) and John Richards (Chief Officer NHS Southampton City Clinical Commissioning Group) and Dr Sue Robinson (Clinical Chair of the Southampton City Clinical Commissioning Group) were in attendance and, with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.
The Panel were presented with an overview of how the regional STP was progressing and developing its core delivery programmes. It was noted that these had been broadened to include services for the treatment of children and cancer. It was noted that the STP was building on local plans such as the Better Care programme in the City. It was explained that local ownership of the programme was a key aspect of the STP.
The Panel questioned how IT issues were being managed noting that the Hampshire Health Records System had provided a platform that enabled the differing health organisations to share information electronically.
It was explained that the City’s Better Care Programme had been used to help draw together the draft Southampton City Local Delivery System Plan. The Chief Officer NHS Southampton City Clinical Commissioning Group explained that it would be possible to share this draft plan with the Panel in order for Members to understand the detail of how the local plan was feeding into the core programmes of the STP.
The Panel questioned how the system was adapting to the use of modern technology especially around the potential scope of text messaging. The Panel were keen to see the local system taking advantage of the opportunities such as these to drive forward savings, greater efficiency and an enhanced patient experience. The Panel discussed the 111 service and in particular reflected on the pilot that was introducing a greater level of clinical input into the service with the aim of making it more effective and increasing patient satisfaction.
The Panel questioned how both local and regional plans would impact on dental health outcomes within the City. The recommendation of the former Southampton Public Health Director which set out their considerations relating to the addition of fluoride to the water supply in Southampton was noted and the Panel requested clarification on the decision making process and on the role of the Health and Wellbeing Board in this matter.
The Panel questioned how the STP would include considerations around adults with learning disabilities. The Panel were particularly concerned that delays on health care plans for children would have a knock on effect in establishing the correct levels of funding.
RESOLVED that the Panel requested:
(i) that clarification is provided to the Panel of the decision making process required to introduce fluoride into the water supply and the role that the Health and Wellbeing Board would play in this decision;
(ii) that the draft Southampton City Local Delivery System Plan is circulated ... view the full minutes text for item 4.
Report of the Director, System Delivery - NHS
Southampton Clinical Commissioning Group, informing the Panel of
proposals to make better use of the land and buildings at the Royal
South Hants Hospital and at the Western Community
The Panel considered the report of the Director, System Delivery - NHS Southampton Clinical Commissioning Group, informing the Panel of proposals to make better use of the land and buildings at the Royal South Hants Hospital and at the Western Community Hospital.
Peter Horne (Director of System Delivery, Southampton City Clinical Commissioning Group), Paul Benson (Senior Commissioner, Southampton City Clinical Commissioning Group) and Harry Dymond (Chair of Healthwatch Southampton) were in attendance and, with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.
The Panel noted the key drivers and intentions of the proposals to rationalise the use of land at the two sites. It was explained that the project was essentially an exercise to consolidate and tidy up the estate of the local health service in order to:
· Make better use of sites within the City;
· Draw together key departments; and
· Improve customer experience and clinical efficiency.
The process undertaken to develop the proposal to its current state was explained to the Panel. It was noted that there were a number of factors that had been taken into consideration including:
· a clinical need for an extra care facility and improve the efficiency of services offered by facilitating the movement of patients through to key departments;
· a desire to enhance the potential offer to employees through the construction of key worker housing;
· community concerns that would need to be overcome including parking difficulties and the public impression/perception of the disused and vacant Department of Psychiatry. It was noted that a community use could be found for the Chapel building at the Royal South Hants site; and
· the financial concerns. It was noted that the proposals needed to be both practical and affordable.
It was noted that Healthwatch had been engaged within the early discussions and that at this stage the plans to reconfigure the clinical configuration of the two sites were being supported.
RESOLVED that the Panel noted the report and broadly supported the CCG’s direction of travel for the two sites. It was recognised that this would be a challenging programme and requested that the Panel be kept informed as the programme develops.
Report of the Chair of the Health Overview and
Scrutiny Panel requesting that the Panel consider the quality of
the Southampton Suicide Prevention plan and how effectively it is
The Panel considered the report of the Chair of the Health Overview and Scrutiny Panel requesting that the Panel consider the quality of the Southampton Suicide Prevention plan and how effectively it is being implemented.
Dr Jason Horsley (Director of Public Health) and Sally Denley (Public Health Development Manager) were in attendance and, with the consent of the Chair, addressed the meeting.
It was explained that this item had come forward at the direct request of the House of Commons Health Committee who had recommended that there should be scrutiny of the implementation of the local suicide prevention plans.
It was noted that Southampton’s figures were a cause for concern. The Panel explored the potential reasons for the records showing a higher than average rate locally. Officers stated that the reason for the high figures were unclear but, there did seem to be a correlation between the increase in suicides, both nationally and locally, and the performance of the economy. Officers stated that figures also indicated that the biggest increase in numbers had been seen within the middle aged, white, male sector of society.
It was explained that the figures reflected concerns and issues across Southampton but, noted that there were sections of society which tended to show higher rates of both suicide and attempted suicide and that work was being undertaken to support individuals within these groups through community engagement and a variety of methods.
It was explained that whilst the amount of finance allocated by the Council to this issue was small it was being used as effectively as possible. Officers identified that some of the funding had been used to support communities and the families of those who had committed suicide. The Panel explored how additional support could be given through programmes of education in schools and sports clubs.
RESOLVED that the report be noted and that further updates be brought to the Panel in due course.