Mike Kelly FCIOB MCIM Chief Executive Our Ref Your Ref Date Please ask for Direct Line Direct Fax E-mail TO: JG HSC/JG 11 March 2015 Julie Gallagher 0161 253 6640 [email protected] Legal & Democratic Services Division Jayne Hammond LLB (Hons) Solicitor Assistant Director of Legal & Democratic Services All Members of Health Scrutiny Committee Councillors : P Adams, P Bury (Chair), E Fitzgerald, L Fitzwalter, J Grimshaw, S Haroon, K Hussain, Kerrison, Mallon, T Pickstone, S Smith and R Walker Dear Member/Colleague Health Scrutiny Committee You are invited to attend a meeting of the Health Scrutiny Committee which will be held as follows:Date: Thursday, 19 March 2015 Place: Peel Room (Elizabethan Suite), Town Hall, Knowsley Street, Bury Time: 7.00 pm Briefing Facilities: Notes: If Opposition Members and Co-opted Members require briefing on any particular item on the Agenda, the appropriate Director/Senior Officer originating the related report should be contacted. *** please note there will be a briefing for elected members only commencing at 6pm in the Lancashire Fusiliers Room AGENDA The Agenda for the meeting is attached. Reports are enclosed only for those attending the meeting and for those without access to the Council’s Intranet or Website. Electronic service of legal documents accepted only at: E-mail: [email protected] Town Hall Knowsley Street Bury BL9 0SW www.bury.gov.uk The Agenda and Reports are available on the Council's Intranet for Councillors and Officers and also on the Council’s Website at www.bury.gov.uk – click on Agendas, Minutes and Forward Plan. Copies of printed reports can also be obtained on request by contacting the Democratic Services Officer named above. Yours sincerely Chief Executive AGENDA 1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE 2 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Members of Health Scrutiny Committee are asked to consider whether they have an interest in any of the matters on the agenda and if so, to formally declare that interest. 3 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Questions are invited from members of the public present at the meeting on any matters for which this Committee is responsible. 4 MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING (Pages 1 - 6) The minutes of the last meeting held on 10th February 2015 are attached. 5 MATTERS ARISING 6 DRUG AND ALCOHOL SERVICES UPDATE (Pages 7 - 26) Tracy Minshall, Strategic Lead, Strategy and Development, Department of Communities and Wellbeing will report at the meeting. Presentation attached. Others officers in attendance will include - Ann Norleigh Noi (Senior Partnership Implementation Officer); Pam Lievesley - One Recovery Bury (Service Delivery Director for Bury); Anita McWilliam One Recovery Bury (Team manager); Debbie Chadwick – Sodexo Justice Services/One Recovery Bury (Drug & Alcohol Strategy Lead Forest Bank). 7 INTRODUCTION FROM THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE PENNINE ACUTE NHS TRUST The Chief Executive of the Pennine Acute NHS Trust, Dr Gillian Fairfield will report at the meeting. 8 HEALTH SCRUTINY EVENT UPDATE (Pages 27 - 30) A copy of an Evaluation report from Jane Scullion, Centre for Public Scrutiny advisor is attached. 9 URGENT BUSINESS Any other business which by reason of special circumstances the Chair agrees may be considered as a matter of urgency. This page is intentionally left blank Document Pack Page 1 Agenda Item 4 Minutes of: HEALTH SCRUTINY COMMITTEE Date of Meeting: 10 February 2015 Present: Councillor P Bury (in the Chair) Councillors P Adams, E FitzGerald, L Fitzwalter, J Grimshaw, S Haroon, K Hussain, S Kerrison, J Mallon, T Pickstone, S Smith and R Walker Also in attendance: John Boyington - Chairman - Bury GP Federation Linda Jackson - Assistant Director – Adult Care Services Public Attendance: There was 1 member of the public present at the meeting. Apologies for Absence: Michelle Armstrong - Chief Officer - Bury GP Federation HSC.687 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Walker declared a personal interest in any item relating to the Radcliffe Pilot as the medical centre he was registered with fell within that pilot. Councillor Grimshaw declared a personal interest in any item relating the CCG as she was a member of the Patients' Cabinet. HSC.688 MINUTES OF THE LAST MEETING It was agreed: That the Minutes of the Last Meeting held on 27 January 2015 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair. HSC.689 MATTERS ARISING 1. Councillor Walker referred to Minute HSC.645 – Better Care Fund Submission and referred to the resolution that an update would be brought to a future meeting of the Health Scrutiny Committee. Councillor Walker asked if a more specific timeframe could be given so that it was ensured that the action was followed up. Councillor Bury explained that the forward plan of the Committee would be the first item that the new Committee would discuss at the first meeting of the 2015/2016 Municipal Year. 469 Document Pack Page 2 Linda Jackson, Assistant Director explained that the Better Care fund would commence in April 2015 and it would be likely that a report be brought to this Committee around October 2015. HSC.690 BURY GP FEDERATION UPDATE - PRIME MINISTER'S CHALLENGE FUND John Boyington, Chair of the Bury GP Federation presented members with an update on the work of the GP Federation and focussing on the successful Prime Minister's Challenge Fund bid. It was explained that the GP Federation was a company Limited by shares which was incorporated in November 2103. There were originally 26 GP practice members who jointly invested £250 000 to establish the federation and a further 4 had since joined. It was explained that the GP Federation had been commissioned to work with the Radcliffe GP practices to help set up and operate the Healthier Radcliffe Pilot. Work had also been carried out to assist with the winter pressures that GP surgeries were under during the winter season and had seen surgeries providing extra hours to assist with this. The objective of the Prime Minister's Challenge Fund had been to:• • • • • • Pilot improvements in access to appointments; Promote innovation, share learning and deliver benefits to patients; Explore a variety of ways to extend access including: - Longer opening hours - Greater flexibility of access - e.g. multiple site access - Greater use of Technology Online services Telehealth The GP federation had submitted the 'Bury Easy-GP' bid which was presented as a document setting out vision and ambition and included: • • • • Extended working hours 6.30 - 8pm Monday to Friday 8am - 6pm Saturday and Sunday Increasing the number of patients registered for online access Offering telephone consultations to all patients instead of face to face Developing a comparison style website. John reported that the proposed models for service delivery had been accepted by all members who are collaborating to increase online registration, a telephone consultation option and to deliver extended working hours. 470 Document Pack Page 3 The extended working hours model was based on having 5 sites strategically placed around the borough with a planned offering of 1420 extra appointments per week. It was explained that currently all partner GPs were being given the option to work extended hours at a rate of £80 ph. Those GPs offering the extended hours would have read and write access to all Bury patients' medical records which would allow for a bury patient to access any of the sites across the borough. It was explained that the service was just ramping up to capacity and there had been issues with IT. The extended working hours was currently at 50% of the expected capacity providing an extra 700 appointment per week. There was currently no prescription printing solution available. GPs had been slow to come forward but recruitment was now picking up. John reported that the initial funding from the Challenge Fund would deliver services to May 2015. Additional funds had however been allocated which would extend services to November 2015 and allow for further evaluation The Clinical Commissioning Group were committed to funding an Extended Working Hours service but were waiting for the evaluation feedback before determining how the service would be delivered. Those present were given the opportunity to ask questions and make comments and the following points were raised:• Councillor Fitzwalter referred to the 5 sites across the borough that had been identified to provide the extended working hours. Tottington Medical Centre had been identified as the site for the north of the Borough but it was barely up and running due to issues with access to rooms and GPs from Ramsbottom not having capacity to provide extra hours. Councillor Fitzwalter explained that the service was currently only offering 2 hours on a Saturday and 2 hours on a Sunday. John explained that the GP Federation were aware that access to practices in Tottington had been difficult but they were committed to ensure that full capacity was provided. The Federation were recruiting GPs and the issue of rooms was being addressed. It was explained that the evaluation of the uptake of the use of extended hours services would be based on the capacity available. • Councillor Pickstone asked how much funding had and would be received. John reported that the initial Challenge Fund amount had been £2.7m and an extra £600,000 had been secured from April 2015. 471 Document Pack Page 4 • Councillor Mallon asked what reassurances were in place in relation to patients' records if sharing these across the borough. John explained that the IT systems in use were national systems and security was of the utmost importance. There were issues with the systems allowing the sharing of files and these were being worked through. • Councillor Mallon asked whether there was a shortage of GPs in Bury and whether this was having an impact on recruitment. John explained that he wasn't aware of any shortfall across the borough but the Federation were relying on the existing stock of GPs to provide the service and not all of them wanted to take up the offer. • • Councillor Adams stated that the online registration needed to be made easier as at the moment it was quite difficult to do and would put some people off. Councillor Walker asked when it was likely that the out of hours service would have full access to medical records. John stated that he wasn't sure of the timescale but it was being worked on and the issue would be solved. • Councillor Grimshaw referred to the way that access was spread across the borough and asked whether this would be changed as some areas may require more access due to logistics. John stated that this was the model that had been agreed on for the pilot but this could change after the evaluation exercise was completed. • Councillor Kerrison asked how the extended hours would work for GPs. Would they be extra hours or a change to their working week. John explained that it would be up to the GP how they worked but all GPs working hours would be monitored. It was agreed 1. That John be thanked for his presentation 2. That a progress report be brought to the Committee once the evaluation had been carried out. HSC.691 BURY GP FEDERATION - HEALTHIER RADCLIFFE EVALUATION REPORT John Boyington, Chair of the Bury GP Federation gave a presentation explaining the background, objectives and progress of the Healthier Radcliffe pilot and the initial results and feedback following 12 months operation of the scheme. 472 Document Pack Page 5 It was explained that the objectives of Healthier Radcliffe were:1. • • • 2. • • Extend access to local GP and primary care services at one point of access Access to local GP s 8 am - 8pm Monday to Friday and 8am - 6pm Saturday and Sunday Patients will be seen by a local clinician who has access to their health records Integrating other providers and partners such as hospitals, commuity and social services to provide better joined up care in the community at one point of contact Health education and information programmes. The progress made was explained:1. • • • 2. • • • • • Planning carried out between July and September 2013 Design, agreement, IT enablement, mobilisation and communication delivered over 3 months enabling governance structures Successful service went live 2 December 2013 providing 1000 appointments each month Two integrated workshops held October 2013 and February 2014 Provider bids invited and submitted during June/July 2914 'Well being' commissioners review of bids feeding into GP Federation approval on 3 August 2014 Enhanced project management August 2014 Services mobilised between October 2014 and January 2015. John reported that four projects had been added to Healthier Radcliffe and these were:• North West Ambulance Service - "Green Car" Paramedic which had seen a 60% deflection of 999 calls • Multi disciplinary Team and Reablement • Domiciliary Medication Optimisation - targeting the 200 patients with the most complex medication needs • Targeted Early Intervention There had been significant media coverage of Healthier Radcliife and all attendances of Radcliffe patients at hospital had reduced in all 4 areas. It was also reported that walk in centre activity had reduced and patient feedback was positive. It was explained that the first draft of the evaluation report was due to be received by the GP Federation in mid February 2015. 473 Document Pack Page 6 John also reported that Healthier Radcliffe had been nominated for a British Medical Journal Award and some of the staff working on the scheme were attending a parliamentary event in London to celebrate good working practices. Those present were given the opportunity to ask questions and make comments and the following points were raised:• Councillor FitzGerald asked whether there were any indications that new patients were now attending as appointment times were more accessible. John stated that he was not aware of this but it could be a possibility. • Councillor Walker referred to the fact that Mile Lane Surgery was included within the scheme even though it was located in Bury and asked whether the figures would include the Mile Lane Surgery patients. It was explained that if they had attended the services provided then they would be included in the figures. It was agreed: 1. That the information be noted 2. That the outcome of the evaluation be reported to the Committee when it had been finalised. COUNCILLOR P BURY Chair (Note: The meeting started at 6.00 pm and ended at 7.30pm) 474 Tracy Minshull Agenda Item 6 Strategic Lead Strategy & Development Communities & Well Being Document Pack Page 7 Introduction JSNA Joint Strategic Needs Assessment List of Deficits •Long waiting times for access •No Interventions for stimulant users Public Service Commissioning Plans DAAT Treatment Plans List of Services •Introduced Initial Triage •Commissioned Stimulant worker Document Pack Page 8 As it was: a time of plenty • Deficits • Public Services • Treatment MID POINT ALLEGIANCE Recovery Community Organisations • Assets • Community • Recovery Document Pack Page 9 As it is: a Time of Austerity 5 Ways to Well Being: 1. Connect 2. Keep Learning 3. Take Notice 4. Give 5. Be Active Document Pack Page 10 Solution is in the Community Senior Partnership Implementation Officer Communities & Well Being Document Pack Page 11 Ann Norleigh Noi Needs Assessment Large scale Consultation – Service Users & Providers Strategic Pathway Events (included wider stakeholder input) Evidence from the above processes informed the partnership decision to go out to tender........ Document Pack Page 12 Service Review Strengths: Good at getting people into treatment Accessible to both criminal justice and non-criminal justice clients Co-located drug and alcohol treatment service Waiting time for treatment access is short Weakness: Clients are recycled within the treatment system with 63% of individuals representing Evidenced lack of focus on outcomes – service users retained Lack of aftercare provision Little or no internal challenge, this makes it difficult to ‘modernise’ service An apparent ‘fear’ of change Document Pack Page 13 Service review 2011/12: findings Education: lack of a structured programme on the risks associated with consumption of alcohol/drugs; Early interventions: lack of structured provision to reduce problematic use of alcohol and drugs; Outreach: lack of outreach to increase treatment uptake among harder to reach populations; Low numbers of stimulant users engaging; Lack of aftercare Lack of a tangible recovery community Lack of movement of service users through the treatment system Document Pack Page 14 Needs Assessment: gaps identified Gaps identified: Outreach opportunities; Aftercare opportunities; Better geographical spread of services/support; A responsive weekend service; Effective links with prisons; Interventions for stimulant users; Effective transition for young people aged 18 years and over; A visual recovery community. Document Pack Page 15 Stakeholder input two events Our vision is to commission a drug and alcohol service which is based on local need; adopts a whole system approach to provision; is outcome focused and recovery orientated; and, is responsive to both the needs of individual service users and emerging local trends. Document Pack Page 16 The Service Specification: our vision Service: the provision of drug and alcohol service for adults in Bury Age range: 18 years and over Substances: Drugs: including ‘legal highs’, over the counter/ prescribed medications Alcohol Contract duration: 3 years (with the provision to extend for further 12 months) Procurement process from: July 2012 to April 2014 Document Pack Page 17 The specification: service overview Unique working collaboration Whole systems approach Recovery focused & community based Innovative way of working with the prison Gateways Project Reduced Crime Freedom from dependency Document Pack Page 18 Service fit for the future... BURY Pam Lievesley (RMN, Bsc Hons, MA,Msc, PGCE) Service Delivery Director for Bury However, most importantly.. Document Pack Page 19 ONERECOVERY Document Pack Page 20 INTRODUCTION This presentation will discuss the challenges, the successes during the first twelve months and the future aims for One Recovery Bury. Managing the changes: - Service staff - Service User - Other Professionals - Electronic systems: paper to paperless Implementing the New Model: - Reviewing and Adjusting the Model. Establishing New Partnerships within One Recovery Bury: - Communication between partners. - Understanding each others roles and responsibilities Document Pack Page 21 CHALLENGES • “End to End” Integrated recovery focused service. • Bridging The Gap – Graduation Event • Volunteers • BEST - Welly Project • D2 (ORBIT) Project • Benzodiazepine Worker • All prescribed service users reviewed by the Medical Team. • Gateway – Addullam Housing & Families (Early Break) • Sodexo – continuity for prisoners. • Service User Involvement • Maintaining stability – dedicated and professional Team Document Pack Page 22 SUCCESSES Service Manager – Anita McWilliam Deputy Manager Healthcare Team: Doctors – Dr Kaushal (Lead Consultant) Dr Husain, Dr Jackson, Nurses: Laura Walker, Mark Hinchliffe Criminal Justice Practitioners Karen Harrison – Team Manager Don Green, Paul Curran, Caroline Woods Senior Practitioners Elsie Rushworth, Angie Boast Recovery Practitioners Trish Sweatman, Kai Lievesley, Rod Birtles, Emma Ward, Iain Grey, Vacant Shared Care Amy Scott Lisa Lightbown, Administrators Debbie Simpson – Senior Administrator Julie Walker, Jackie Millward Recovery Hub Co-ordinator Jenny Coulson Recovery Support Worker Lis Ashton Bridging the Gap Co-ordinator Nikki Allison Needle Exchange Scott Walker ADS Co-ordinator – Alcohol Community Volunteers Debra Lamb Volunteers Benzos & Z Drugs Janet Hartley Document Pack Page 23 Service Delivery Director – Pam Lievesley • Recovery Hub - ORB • Recovery Spokes – Townships • Increased Visible Recovery/Recovery in Communities. • More volunteers & Peer Mentors. • Increased numbers leaving Prison Drug Free. • Increased numbers leaving prison with accommodation and continued support • Support for offenders and their families Document Pack Page 24 FUTURE FROM TO: Competition Partnership Independence Collaboration Outputs Outcomes Process driven Evidence Sometime disjointed Care Fully integrated Service Document Pack Page 25 CONCLUSION Document Pack Page 26 This page is intentionally left blank Document Pack Page 27 Agenda Item 8 Taking stock of health scrutiny in Bury Council This report is written just as health scrutiny in Bury is about to enter a new era with the recent announcement of plans to devolve responsibility for health and social care to statutory organisations in Greater Manchester. That background provides a useful opportunity to take stock of the work of Bury Council’s Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Although it is to be expected that arrangements will change in future, given devolution, there are still many useful lessons to be gained from taking stock of current and recent experience in this area. The report aims to summarise the strengths of practices in Bury, to outline the issues that emerged from councillors, officers and other stakeholders during a developmental session led by the Centre for Public Scrutiny in February 2015 and to outline areas for further consideration. Overview and Scrutiny in Bury: the strengths Trust and joint working Scrutiny in Bury Council benefits from good relationships with external organisations such as the Clinical Commissioning Group, Pennine Care and the local Healthwatch. There is ongoing dialogue between those external organisations and the council and some recognition of the respective roles that each play in the local health landscape. There is evidence of willingness to engage and the difficulties of information sharing, particularly about finance, are not shied away from, but treated with some frankness about what is possible. The scrutiny of the large reconfigurations had gone well in Bury as a result. External organisations appear to accept the legitimacy of the scrutiny and overview process and are therefore prepared to participate and engage in debate. Generally joint working with external organisations is working well for Bury Council. Continuity One explanation for the strengths of those external relations is the continuity provided by the chair of Bury Council’s Overview and Scrutiny Committee also fulfilling that role for the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee(for the Pennine Care NHS Trust) and the Greater Manchester Joint Health Scrutiny Committee. This enabled links to be made and relationships to be developed over a period of time and increased the chair’s overall understanding of the overall health economy and the key players within it. It is to be hoped that this kind of continuity will continue to operate in the new arrangements, with scrutiny chairs as ‘hubs’, enabling information to flow in both directions between the Greater Manchester level and the local level. It is important that the ‘overview’ function is kept in sight, as well as the scrutiny of individual decisions. Focussed topic choice Bury has also used ‘task and finish’ groups on specific health topics very well. The topics of diabetes and also of dentistry were quoted as particularly successful examples of successful scrutiny projects where councillors, officers and partners all agreed that there had been real impact. Clearly bounded topics, good performance data on service delivery and strong engagement from all stakeholders were cited as key to success, as was the role of the scrutiny officers in supporting the reviews. It was 1 Document Pack Page 28 also agreed that the pre-meeting briefing was essential in providing additional relevant information and giving a focus to the questioning within limited time constraints. Overview and Scrutiny in Bury: areas for further consideration External versus internal facing scrutiny Bury Council’s scrutiny councillors, like many others elsewhere in the country, noted that it sometimes seems easier to scrutinise the provision of services provided by external bodies than those provided by the council itself. There are, it might be speculated, several possible explanations for this general problem. The role of ‘critical friend’ is sometimes hard to get right within a council setting. There might be a shared understanding within the council that times are hard and budgets are tight, which leads to a feeling of sympathy and a reluctance to engage in a more rigorous questioning of decision-makers and senior officers. There might be a culture amongst some officers that scrutiny is not particularly highly valued and that therefore information provision is not prioritised. It may be that a particular council’s political or management culture sees problems with performance as a matter for blame rather than legitimate enquiry. It is not suggested that any of these explanations describes the situation in Bury, but rather it is proposed that the council guards against this by continuing to strengthen its existing support for the challenge of overview and scrutiny as a legitimate part of the checks and balances in the democratic process. Entry points for scrutiny Scrutiny councillors also noted that there were some very practical areas that could be improved in order to enhance health scrutiny. The first of these was the difficult question of the ‘entry’ point for a scrutiny committee. In an increasingly plural service delivery environment, with services being provided at arm’s length through a variety of vehicles, councillors were unsure about the role of the committee in, for example, pre-contract specification, where there might be commercial confidentiality. It may be that some involvement at the pre-contract specification stage might be useful, to harness the knowledge of the scrutiny committee and also to assist in setting up what the scrutiny arrangements should be after the contracts are let. Councillors, in general, do not extinguish their responsibilities and accountabilities for functions even if the service provider is external to the council and it may be that building scrutiny into the process at an early stage would help to provide an additional accountability mechanism. Bury Council may wish to engage in further debate about appropriate entry points for scrutiny committees as the terrain of service provision becomes more diverse. Site visits The next area for consideration that emerged was the very practical desire to make more site visits as part of overview and scrutiny. It was agreed by councillors and stakeholders that this type of experiential learning and the information gained from talking to service managers and users in the work setting had often proved invaluable and it was felt that this should be planned into task and finish group work programmes in the future. Rules for closure The question of the ‘rules for ‘closure’ was also one that continued to exercise members. Following each review there was a period of time when the recommendations were regularly monitored and reported upon and this could, in some cases, lead to agendas being clogged up with ‘old’ items. It 2 Document Pack Page 29 was agreed that it would be more effective to reduce agendas to enable in depth discussion and that the committee should give consideration to shorter monitoring schedules and have a cut-off point. Questioning The issue of how to offer robust challenge to decision makers while remaining a ‘critical friend’ is one which is common to scrutiny councillors across the country and Bury is no exception. Councillors spoke of feeling bamboozled at times by slick presentations from skilled officers and of the continued need to dig down into performance reports in order to understand the whole picture. Scrutiny councillors are reminded that they are ‘lay’ members who cannot have the expertise in every specialist area; their job is to ask the questions that the public, the service users, would expect them to ask – the who, what, how, why and when questions. Conclusion The confidence that Bury Council displays in its management of its health scrutiny functions is demonstrated by its commitment to training (in new health legislation, for example), but also in its determination to make the time for learning and reflection, even when things seem to be going well. Councils are sometimes criticised for only engaging in taking stock of their democratic processes when things have gone wrong and there is a crisis; Bury is an exception with regard to its health scrutiny function. The Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee has tried to learn from good practice elsewhere using the Centre for Public Scrutiny material and support, it has explored the lessons to be learned from the Francis and the Casey reports and it has sought to make sure that it is kept up to date with changing legislation. The Bury Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee, by engaging in regular evaluation of its own effectiveness and refreshing members’ skills is taking measures to guard against complacency and drift and is setting an example to other councils. Report of Jane Scullion, Expert Advisor, Centre for Public Scrutiny, March 2015. Email: [email protected] Website: http://www.cfps.org.uk Supporting information: Publications on questioning skills: http://www.cfps.org.uk/domains/cfps.org.uk/local/media/uploads/060711questioningskillsf inal.pdf http://www.cfps.org.uk/publications?item=213&offset=150 Casey Report: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/401125/4 6966_Report_of_Inspection_of_Rotherham_WEB.pdf Practice guides: http://cfps.org.uk/practice-guides 3 Document Pack Page 30 This page is intentionally left blank
© Copyright 2024