Venue: Council Chamber, Runcorn Town Hall. View directions
Contact: Lynn Derbyshire on 0151 471 7389 or e-mail lynn.derbyshire@halton.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Councillor John Swain Minutes: The Board stood in silence as a mark of respect for the sad passing of Councillor John Swain. |
|
Minutes Minutes: The Minutes of the meeting held 10 January 2012 having been printed and circulated were signed as a correct record. |
|
Public Question Time PDF 27 KB Minutes: The Board was advised that no public questions had been received. |
|
Health & Well Being Board Minutes PDF 15 KB Minutes: The Board was advised that there
were no minutes available relating to
the Health and Social Care Portfolio which have been considered by the Health
& Well Being Board since the last meeting of the Board. |
|
Presentation: Health & Wellbeing Strategy PDF 56 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Board considered a report of
the Strategic Director, Communities which provided Members with an update on the Joint
Health and Wellbeing Strategy. The Board was advised that the Strategy
provided the overarching framework within which commissioning plans for the
NHS, Social Care, Public Health and other services which the Health and
Wellbeing Board (HWBB) had agreed were relevant for development. The Board was further advised that
Halton HWBB had set up a Joint Health and
Wellbeing Strategy group which was led by the Director of Public Health. This group had held its first meeting in
January 2012. It had agreed the Terms of
Reference, membership, a timeline and project plan. It had also developed a draft outline
framework and had started to populate it with information. This had been presented to the Health
Strategy sub group. The key points outlined in the guidance and set out in paragraph 3.6 of
the report was noted. It was reported that it was essential that all members of the HWBB,
Council Members, Clinical Commissioning Groups, Policy
and Performance Boards and members of the public were engaged in setting health
priorities. Priorities, it was
highlighted should be based on information from the JSNA with a clear audit
trail. In addition, it was reported that agreement on the Health and Well Being
Strategy priorities and alignment of a number of CCG priorities against these
must be reached by early June 2012 to enable Clinical Commissioning Groups
(CCG) to sign off commissioning intentions by the end of June. Clarity was sought on what consultation had been undertaken with young
people aged 19+. In response, it was
reported that there were lots of different
opportunities for people to
engage in the consultation process. An
interactive event had been organised at the Stobart
Stadium, Widnes, (date to be determined), the Youth Parliament would be
consulted, a website was available and there would be numerous press releases
highlighting the consultation activities It was suggested that data on health should include the impact of
working and the working environment as
well as lifestyles. It was highlighted
that unemployment and shift patterns could be stressful and this was a
contributing factor on an individuals health. RESOLVED: That the report and comments raised be noted. |
|
Bridgewater Community Healthcare NHS Trust PDF 15 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Board received a report and
presentation from Kate Fallon, Chief
Executive Bridgewater NHS Trust regarding their application to become a
Foundation Trust. Mr Harry
Holden, Chairman of Bridgewater Community Healthcare NHS Trust was also in attendance at the meeting. The consultation document was appended to the report. The Board was advised that Bridgewater provided healthcare services in
Ashton, Leigh and Wigan, Halton and St Helens,
Trafford, Warrington and Community Dental Services in all of the above areas plus
Bolton, Stockport, Tameside and Glossop and West Cheshire. The Board was further advised that
Bridgewater
was currently seeking views from patients and the public on its plans for
becoming a Foundation Trust. The Foundation Trust would have unique governance
arrangements which included members
(public, patients and staff) and governors
(elected by members or nominated by partner organisations). The presentation:- ·
Explained
the range of services that the NHS was responsible for and highlighted that it
was about people and the population and the services would be delivered
locally; ·
Outlined
the Bridgewater footprint; ·
Set out
their mission and vision and the challenges that they currently faced in
respect of significant social deprivation and the numerous health issues in the
Borough such as heart disease, obesity, diabetes and smoking etc; ·
Reflected
on the changes and challenges in 2006/07 and 2010/11in strengthening care
closer to home; ·
Looked
forward to the changes and challenges in the future 2016/17 and highlighted the
reasons for becoming a Foundation Trust; ·
Outlined
the integrated services around practice populations; ·
explained
that they were working in partnerships with patients and providers to deliver
best value, high quality integrated care, delivering systems savings, providing
more care out of hospital, delivering specialist services to vulnerable people
and delivering universal services to improve the well-being of populations; and ·
highlighted
the potential mutual benefits from partnership and the rationale for seeking
Foundation status. A booklet, ‘Your
community healthcare services, your chance to get involved’ was circulated at
the meeting. The following
comments arose from the discussion:- ·
It was
highlighted that Runcorn had been omitted from the consultation document. In response, an apology was given and the Board
were informed that this matter would be rectified; ·
The
role and structure of the Council of Governors was noted. It was also noted
that there would be Public, Staff and Partner-appointed Governors elected; ·
It was noted
that the NHS were not a profit making organisation and any profits made would
be re-invested back into the services; ·
It was
noted that as a result of the health reforms, private companies would be
looking to provide some of the services in the future. However, it was also noted that there was a
likelihood that as they were a business they would want to ‘cherry pick’
services and only deliver services that
would be profitable; and ·
Clarity
was sought on whether there would be consultation events in Widnes and
Runcorn. In response, it was reported
that consultation would take place with Runcorn and Widnes residents. RESOLVED: That (1) The ... view the full minutes text for item 58. |
|
(Note: Councillor M
Lloyd Jones declared and Personal Interest in the following item of business
due to her husband being a member of Halton Clinical
Commissioning Group and a lay advisor to NHS Merseyside and Halton
/ St Helens Primary Care Trust). |
|
Comprehensive cancer Centre for Cheshire & Merseyside PDF 111 KB Minutes: The Board considered a report of
the Strategic Director, Communities which sought to provide information on the
work that had been taking place in Cheshire and Merseyside to consider and bring
forward proposals for the development of World Class Cancer Services in
Cheshire and Merseyside through the establishment of a new Cancer Centre in
Liverpool and the further development of services across the area. The Board was advised that the report was
requesting Members support for the delivery of a wide-ranging communication and
involvement exercise designed to share the proposals with a wide range of
stakeholders across Cheshire and Merseyside and further afield where
appropriate. Leoni Beavers, MD
Liverpool Primary Care Trust and Jackie Robinson, Head of Engagement and
Involvement, NHS Merseyside gave a verbal update at the meeting. It was reported that in autumn 2010, Pricewaterhouse
Coopers (PwC) had been engaged by Liverpool PCT to undertake a high level
affordability study to review the cost and affordability of building a new
comprehensive Cancer Centre co-located with a redeveloped at Royal Liverpool
Hospital. The final report had been
published in March 2011. The study had
reviewed two options – a Standalone Cancer Centre and a Cancer Centre with an
element of shared services with the RLBUH. The capital cost of both options (based
on 80 inpatient beds) was £116.5m and £105.2m respectively (both excluding
VAT). The Board was further advised that both Trust Boards had worked together to
consider and bring forward an affordable proposal which incorporated:- ·
A new
build Clatterbridge Cancer Centre adjacent to the
proposed new build Royal Liverpool Hospital (RLH); ·
A
separate dedicated entrance for the Cancer Centre; ·
The
majority of cancer inpatient services provided by Clatterbridge
Cancer Centre, to be accommodated within the RLH scheme with flexibility within
the cancer centre to provide additional, flexible inpatient/day care services; ·
Radiotherapy,
chemotherapy, dedicated imaging and outpatient services to be provided within
the Cancer Centre; ·
Appropriate,
dedicated patient and staff access links between the Cancer Centre and RLH
buildings with required clinical adjacencies conducive to effective and
efficient delivery of patient care and clinical trials; ·
A
dedicated adjacent free car parking facility for cancer patients; ·
Clinical
Trials unit to be provided in collaboration with RLH and the University
assuming essential laboratory support of the Cancer Centre; ·
Cytotoxic
pharmacy to remain on the CCO Wirral site; and ·
A
satellite facility to remain on the CCO Wirral site comprising ambulatory,
radiotherapy and chemotherapy, outpatients services and proton therapy. In making the above recommendations it was recognised that certain patients would have to travel further for certain elements of their care. However, it was emphasised that radiotherapy and chemotherapy services would continue to be provided on the original Clatterbridge site. Outpatient chemotherapy services and radiotherapy services for patients with more common cancers such as breast, prostate and lung would also continue to be provided on the site for local patients. Only those patients who required more complex treatment, or required inpatient facilities, would be required to travel to the ... view the full minutes text for item 59. |
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Policy and Resources which provided information on the progress in achieving targets contained within the 2011- 2016 Sustainable Community Strategy for Halton The Board was advised that selected measures and targets for Health in Halton’s strategic community priorities were summarised in Appendix 1 to the report, using the Halton Corporate template, designed for the purpose of bringing together all relevant items of performance information. The template also provided a clear evidence based rational for measure selection, which would further evidence and support value for money judgements by the Audit Commission and ensure outward accountability. The Board noted the performance indicators relating to obesity and alcohol related admissions and the steps being taken to address these issues. Clarity was sought on Page 83 – the mortality rates and why the trend line increased for 2011/12. In response, it was reported that a written response would be circulated to all Members of the Board. RESOLVED: That the report and comments raised be noted. |
|
Performance Monitoring Reports - Quarter 3 PDF 27 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Board considered a report of
the Strategic Director, Policy and Resources regarding the Quarter Monitoring Reports for the third quarter of
2011/12 to December 2011. The report
detailed progress against service objectives / milestones and performance targets
and described factors affecting the service for: · Prevention and Assessment; and · Commissioning & Complex Care. The Board received and noted a number of
questions relating to the performance monitoring reports. It was reported that the questions and
responses would be appended to the minutes. Information was requested on the
numerous items with question marks, on whether they had been achieved or not i.e Page 120 5.2 and Page 136 – 4.1, 4.2, 5.1 and 5.2. It
was reported that a written response would be circulated to all Members of the
Board. Information on the details of the
objectives on Page 120 – 4.2 – progress against ‘other; objectives / milestones
was requested.
It was reported that this information would be circulated to all Members
of the Board. RESOLVED: That the report, questions and comments received be noted. |
|
Minutes: The Board considered a report of
the Strategic Director, Communities which gave the Members an update on key issues and progression of the agenda
for safeguarding ‘vulnerable adults’ (i.e. adults at risk of abuse) in Halton. The Board was advised that the Safeguarding Adults
Board’s priorities, structure, reporting arrangements, membership and work plan
had been reviewed, taking into account the establishment of the Health and
Well-Being Board in shadow form, and the need to look creatively at mechanisms
for engaging as partner agencies and individuals at a time of reducing
resources and major change. The revised
work plan would demonstrate a greater focus on prevention, aim to strengthen
links with Dignity and Domestic Abuse agendas, and examine Safeguarding
provision in self-directed support and Personalisation. The Board noted the various activities that had taken place and were set
out in paragraphs 3.2 to 3.6 of the report. The Chairman, Councillor E Cargill informed the Members that Julie Hunt was leaving the Authority and was consequently attend his last meeting of the Board. She took the opportunity to thank Julie for the support she had given to the Board during her time in Halton. RESOLVED: That (1) the report and comment raised be noted; and (2) the Board place on record a vote of thanks to Julie Hunt for the work undertaken by her during her time with the Council an also gave their best wishes to her for the future. |
|
Draft Sports Strategy PDF 30 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Communities which sought Members views on the Draft Sports Strategy. The report had been referred by the Employment, Learning, Skills and Community Policy and Performance Board. The Board was advised that this year a key objective of the council was to produce a new sports strategy for Halton. Consultation, which was essential for the success of the strategy, had already began with sports forums and others with an interest in sport. An outline draft copy of the Halton Sports Strategy 2012 -15 was attached at Appendix 1 to the report. The Board was further advised that the strategy took into account
Government policy, the Sport England Strategy, National policies from other
relevant bodies; relevant regional policies, sports specific policies and local
plans, strategies and priorities. It was reported that the strategy identified the following six key
themes:- ·
Increase
Participation and Widening Access; ·
Club
Development; ·
Coach
Education and Volunteering; ·
Sporting
Excellence; ·
Finance
and Funding for Sport; and ·
Sports
Facilities. It would be underpinned by the
need for Partnership working with local and national key partners and active
promotion and publicity to raise the profile of sport. It was also reported that a key outcome was to increase participation in
which Halton had made excellent progress. This had
been evidenced within the strategy. Many successes, set out in paragraph 3.5 of
the report and initiatives of Halton Borough Council
had contributed to the rise in performance since 2005. In conclusion, it was reported that the
council maximises external funding that was available for Sport. The ability to secure grants and work with
partners, to assist with future delivery, would be essential. In addition, it
was reported that investment in School Sport had also significantly reduced
since the Government’s withdrawal of funding to the School Sports Partnership.
As a consequence of this, provision and policy for School sport was solely
within the children and enterprise directorate and would be reported independently by that
Directorate. The following comments arose from the discussion:- · Clarity was sought on the funding of Runcorn Football Club. It was reported that this information would be circulated to all Members of the Board. · Clarity was sought on whether all different types of sports would be developed i.e. cricket and how much funding would be committed to such sports. In addition, it was highlighted that there was already a lot of facilities for football and rugby. It was reported that in 2005 the Authority had received lottery funding and funding from the Council in which artificial pitches and training facilities had been established. There were so many different sports and the Authority was committed to ensuring that everybody has the opportunity to play the sport they wanted; · The comprehensive school sports programme was noted. In addition, it was also noted that the Government had cut funding for sport and after a very high profile campaign some funding had been re-established for sports in schools. However, there remained a very large ... view the full minutes text for item 63. |
|
(Note: Councillor M Dennett
declared and Personal Interest in the following item of business due being a Halton Housing Trust Board Member). |
|
Draft Tenancy Strategy PDF 41 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Communities which sought Members views on Halton’s Tenancy Strategy as a draft document for further consultation. The Board was advised under the terms of the Localism Act local
authorities had to develop a Tenancy Strategy setting out recommendations for
the type of tenancies that should be offered in the local area, the length of
those tenancies (if fixed term tenancies were proposed) and the circumstances
in which they should be offered and renewed.
The Board was further advised that the timescale for local authorities
to develop their tenancy strategies was proposed to be within 12 months
following enactment of the Localism Act (November 2011). Consequently, Registered Providers (PRs) were
able to start offering the new tenancies seven months before the local
authority must develop an approach recommending whether and, if so, how they
were used. For this reason, officers
have started to develop a Tenancy Strategy, on the understanding that it may
need to be revised as a result of any guidance published following enactment of
the Act. It was reported that Officers had met with RPs in September 2011 to
discuss their respective positions with regard to the use of fixed term
tenancies. It was clear that RPs were at
different stages in terms of developing their own approaches, some more
advanced than others, and in some respects were looking to the Council for a
steer. After much discussion, including the role of Affordable Rents and the
proposed Welfare Reforms in the equation, it was agreed that RPs would provide
examples, together with copies of early drafts of any Board reports on
affordable rent and tenancy policies.
The Council would then endeavour to pull together common themes with a
view to developing a permissive rather than a prescribing strategy e.g.
describing circumstances where it may be appropriate to use flexible tenancies. In addition, it was
reported that a Strategy had been drafted which allowed RPs to make use of the
new fixed term tenancies should they wish to do so whilst at the same time
making it clear that the Council’s preference was to maintain the status
quo. The Strategy, set out in Appendix A
to the report, set the parameters for their use. The minimum
term for fixed term tenancies was proposed to be five years (in line with
current Government thinking) but RPs could extend this period if they wished. The
Board noted the details of the Strategy set out in paragraphs 3.3.3 to 3.3.7 of
the report. The
following comments arose from the discussion:- ·
It was noted that there
was a lack of 1 and 2 bedroom properties to rent in the area. In addition, it was also noted that a lot of
the ageing population were currently living in 3 / 4 bedroom properties and were
not in a financial position to downsize.
It was highlighted that any housing that was built would have to have
affordable rent; · It was noted that there was no ... view the full minutes text for item 64. |
|
Scrutiny Review of Autism PDF 28 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Board considered a report of
the Strategic Director, Communities which presented the draft Scrutiny Review of Autism
report for endorsement and to be subsequently referred to the Executive Board
for approval. The Board was advised that the scrutiny review
and resulting report attached as Appendix 1 had been commissioned by the
Board. A scrutiny review working group
had been established comprising of:- · Six Members from
the Board; · Principal Policy
Officer from the People and Communities Policy team; · Practice Manager
for Autism; · Principal and
Practice Managers from the Positive Behaviour Support Service (PBSS); and · Operational
Director (Complex and Commissioning). The Board was further advised that
the review had
been conducted in the following ways:- ·
Monthly meetings of the scrutiny review topic group; ·
Presentations by various key members of staff; ·
Provision of information; ·
Carer consultation; ·
Site visit to Day Services; and · National Autistic Society speaker. The Board was further advised that it had been a very successful review and sixteen realistic recommendations would be considered by the Executive Board for approval. In addition, it was reported that Shopmobility in Runcorn was very successful and shopmobility was currently being developed in Widnes which would create more employment opportunities for people with autism. The source funding for the new batteries for the shopmobility scooters had been secured and they had been purchased. It was reported that the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive had commissioned the National Autistic Society to review adults and young people and this had been completed and the report was imminent. It was suggested that the National Autism Review be presented to the Executive Board at the same time as the topic review. RESOLVED: That (1) the report and comments raised be noted; and (2) the report be presented to the Executive Board for approval at the same time as the National Autistic Review. |
|
Falls Prevention Topic Brief PDF 17 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Board considered a report of
the Strategic Director, Communities which presented details
of the Falls Prevention Scrutiny topic, attached as Appendix A to the report. The Board was
advised that falls were a leading cause of mortality due to injury amongst older
people aged 65 and over. They also contributed to the life expectancy gap
between Halton and England. It was reported that
people who had been admitted to hospital following a fall were at an increased
risk of falling again in the next 12 months, experiencing loss of confidence
and fear of falling, and of losing their independence through entering a
residential care home. The Board was further advised that
nationally
the number of people aged over 65 was due to rise by a third by 2025, which was
associated with increased incidence of falls of 2% per year. In Halton the number of people aged 85 plus was projected to
increase, and this was the most vulnerable group. It was reported that it was good practice to
periodically assess the effectiveness of services provided and the report
sought approval to carry out a scrutiny review of the Falls Prevention Service
and the services provided. In addition, the report, subject to agreement by the Board to accept
the topic brief; sought nominations from members to form a member led scrutiny
working group RESOLVED:
That (1)
The report be noted: (2)
The Topic Brief set out in Appendix A to the report
be approved; and (3)
The following Members be nominated to form part of
the working group:- S Baker; E Cargill; Horabin; J Lowe; M Lloyd-Jones;
and Zygadllo. |