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 |
---|---|
MINUTES Minutes: The Minutes of the meetings held 7 June 2011 and 28 June 2011 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. |
|
Additional documents: Minutes: The Board considered the Minutes
of the meetings of the Executive Board Sub Committee relevant to the Health
Policy and Performance Board. RESOLVED: That the minutes be noted. |
|
Merseyside NHS Cluster PDF 16 KB Minutes: The Board received a presentation from Mr Derek Campbell, Chief Executive, Merseyside NHS Cluster on the role and function of the cluster and how it operated within the context of the emerging NHS reforms. The presentation, which was circulated at the meeting:- · Gave an overview of the proposed NHS reforms; · Outlined the Strategic Health Authority and Primary Care Trust roles in transition; · Detailed the Milestones; · Demonstrated the current geographic footprint; · Set out the clinical commissioning groups – phases of authorisation; and · Detailed the Merseyside cluster priorities during transition. Mr Campbell introduced himself
and Mr Steve Spoerry, Chief Executive of Halton and
St Helens Primary Care Trust and reported that as he covered the four Primary Care
Trusts he could not be fully involved and had therefore, appointed a managing
director in each PCT. Mr Spoerry would be based in Mr Campbell reported that since
being in the post he had developed a clear understanding of the relationship
between Runcorn and Mr Campbell advised the Board that the Clinical Commissioning Groups would lead commissioning and be responsible for 60% of the NHS budget. The National Commissioning Board would allocate resources, set commissioning standards, commission specialised and primary care services and hold commissioners to account. The local Health and Wellbeing Boards would oversee, scrutinise and co-ordinate commissioning plan. In conclusion, Mr Campbell reported that the NHS Commissioning Board would be in shadow form as a Special Health Authority in October 2011. Local Clinical Commissioning Groups were in the process of undertaking risk assessments and the Group’s authorisation process and ‘dry run’ would begin in October 2011. Delegated budgets would also be in place by 2011 and it was emphasised the importance of the Local Authority establishing the Health and Wellbeing Board on the same timeline as the Clinical Commissioning Group obtaining the delegated budget i.e. October 2011. Mr Spoerry advised the Board that it would be advantageous if the new system emerged rapidly. Gp’s, he reported, had taken positive steps and were ahead of the timescale and would be receiving their delegated budgets and new functions in October 2011. He emphasised the importance and benefits of the HWBB being established at the same time. The following comments arose from the discussion:- · Concern was raised that expertise would be lost during the transition period and whether there would be enough expertise remaining in the new shared system. In response, it was reported that employees from public health would TUPE over and local expertise would remain in the new system. ... view the full minutes text for item 21. |
|
Note: (Councillor M Lloyd Jones declared a Personal Interest in the following item of business due to her husband being a Non Executive Director of Halton & St Helens Primary Care Trust.) |
|
Performance Management Reports for Quarter 1 of 2011/12 PDF 27 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Board considered a report of the
Strategic Director, Policy and Resources regarding the 1st Quarter Monitoring
Report for: ·
Prevention
and Commissioning Services; and ·
Complex
Needs. The following points arose from the
discussion:- ·
Page 46
– CCC14 – Clarity was sought on the performance being slightly less in
comparison to the same period last year.
The Board was advised that the carers figure was reported in the monthly
team report and exceptions were also reported to the operational teams.
The figure reported carers who had received either an assessment or a review and
had received services. A large number of carers would already be in
receipt of a service (i.e. DP) and to count against the PI they had to have
been reviewed in the same financial year.
This ensured that the teams conducted timely reviews / reassessments, ensured
that all relevant carers could be counted against the PI and also have their
care/support package reviewed in line with their needs. A member of
performance also met monthly with the operational teams, in order to monitor
that regular reviews were taking place for carers and this in turn, increased
the figure for CCC14. ·
Page 47
– CCC4 – Clarity was sought on performance relating to 581 clients, there being
twelve less than the previous year. In response, it was reported that between one year
and the next, a number of clients’ packages closed and new clients came on the
system to receive services. Between Q1 2010 and Q1 2011, there were 12
less clients. There may be many reasons for this fluctuation. After checking some
of the client records it was found that a client had died in one case and in
another the professional support that they received in one year had been closed
and therefore they did not appear in the 2011 statistics. It was suggested
that the figures were monitored closely in Q2 and if there appeared to be a
decline, further investigation would be required in conjunction with the
operational team. ·
Page 27
– Second Paragraph – Clarity was sought on the £256,000. Information was also sought on the 12 monthly
spend/budget profile for the community care budget and what remedial actions
were being taken. In response, it was reported that if the spend remained static for the remainder of the year the projected
overspend within community care would be £1.4m.
However, it was reported that a recovery plan was in place to dampen the
increase in community care and spend in certain areas had started to decrease. In reply, further details were requested and it
was reported that additional information would be circulated to Members of the Board. ·
Page 41
– Health Watch – clarity was sought on how partnerships would be undertaken
with other Councils. In response, it was reported that under current arrangements for the Link, the Host organisation was jointly commissioned with St Helens Borough Council. In moving forward with the development of Health watch, commissioners, along with stakeholders, would consider the ... view the full minutes text for item 22. |
|
Note: (Councillor M Lloyd Jones declared a Personal Interest in the following item of business due to her husband being a Non Executive Director of Halton & St Helens Primary Care Trust.) |
|
Update on the development of a Health and Wellbeing Board PDF 51 KB Minutes: The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Communities which gave an update on the development of a Shadow Health and Wellbeing Board for Halton and presented the Draft terms of Reference for comment and discussion. The Board was advised that the Halton Health Partnership (HHP) currently acted as the thematic partnership for the Healthy Halton priority. The Partnership reported into the Halton Strategic Partnership Board as one of the five Specialist Strategic Partnerships (SSPs). The Board was further
advised that the HHP had a strategic responsibility for the Healthy Halton
priority and for those elements of work that contributed to the objectives of
the Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) and Local Area Agreement (LAA). The Halton
Health Partnership was currently chaired by the Acting Director of Public
Health. It was reported that health priorities were
also addressed by the Healthy Halton Policy and Performance Board and
Children’s health issues were included in the work of the Children’s Trust and
the Children and Young People’s PPB. It was reported that
safeguarding was addressed by the Safeguarding Adults Board (SAB) which
reported directly into the Safer Halton Partnership and was a non statutory
board. Children’s Safeguarding
issues were addressed by the Halton Safeguarding Children’s Board (HSCB) which
was a statutory board that sat alongside Halton’s
Children’s Trust, with each reporting into and providing challenge to the
other. The HSCB, in addition also provided an annual report to the
Council’s Executive Board. Following an extensive
consultation regarding the attached Terms of Reference set out in Appendix 1 to
the report, it seemed appropriate to set up a Shadow Health and Well-being
Board in Halton. The Shadow Health and
Well-being Board would be responsible for guiding and overseeing the
implementation of the ambitions outlined in the Health White Paper as well as
providing the strategic direction for the Health priority in Halton. Formal decision- making responsibility would
continue to rest with the Council’s Executive and the relevant governance
bodies of the local health services until new legislation was enacted.
Transitional governance arrangements were key in
establishing the Shadow HWBB, given that Health and Well-being Boards would
assume their statutory responsibilities from April 2013. In addition, Overview and Scrutiny issues would remain an integral independent
arrangement within the Health Policy & Performance Board. In
terms of the relationship between the HWBB and Children’s Services it would
seem short sighted to disassemble existing structures when they were working
well. The Children’s Trust, LSCB and SAB should therefore have representation
on the Health and Well-being Board. It was proposed that the Chair of these
boards would fulfil this role and the Children’s Trust continue in its current
format. In conclusion, it was reported that It was proposed that a Shadow Health & Wellbeing Board would be established in October 2011. This would operate in shadow form and a review would be undertaken 12 months after its commencement and a further report to be presented to the Executive on its progress. The current Health SSP would be ... view the full minutes text for item 23. |
|
Minutes: The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Communities which gave Members an update on the key issues and progression of the agenda for Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults. The Board was advised that Halton’s Learning Disabilities Partnership Board had held a Business Planning
Event where ‘Keeping Safe’ had been a key theme. The resulting Business Plan included
priorities and actions drawn up during the event around safeguarding vulnerable
adults and hate crime/hate incidents, including the following, some of which
were already being progressed: ·
Help
people to understand the danger signs; ·
Support
for people and staff to understand how to keep safe; and ·
Talk to
more people who may have been a victim of abuse or hate crime. The Board was further advised that the following priorities had been
drawn up during the event around personalisation and which also had the
potential to impact on the way in which we support people to stay safe from
abuse and exploitation:- ·
Train
personal assistants; ·
Check
that support plans are making a difference to people’s lives; ·
Look at
how we can check how good support plans are; and ·
Check
that people are being supported to become more independent. It was reported that the Safeguarding Adults and Safeguarding Children brief presentations had been incorporated into Halton Borough Council’s Corporate Induction Programme from September 2011. The Board noted the key issues and progressions of the safeguarding agenda set out in paragraphs 3.2 – 3.14 of the report. The following points arose from the discussion:- · Concern was raised regarding short term agency staff not having a current CRB. In response, it was reported that this would be raised at the Task Group Meeting; · The mechanisms in place to ensure the safety of individuals who were living independently but were deemed to be vulnerable but did not consider themselves to be so was noted; and · It was noted that the CRB checks were not being abandoned, but would merge with the vetting and barring system. RESOLVED: That the report and comments raised be noted. |
|
Smoke Free Play Areas PDF 26 KB Minutes: The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Communities which informed Members of the proposal to make public play areas in Halton Smoke Free and provide Members with an opportunity to comment on the proposal. The Board was advised that the report set out a proposal to implement a
voluntary code to make children’s play areas smoke free. The
initiative aimed to de-normalise smoking amongst young children and reduce the
likelihood of them becoming smokers in the future. The Board was further advised that 26% of adults in the Borough smoked. Whilst this level had decreased over recent years the level was still above the national average. Halton’s rate of early deaths caused by smoking remained significantly higher then the national average. Reducing the rates of illness and death caused by smoking was one of Halton’s key public health priorities. To achieve this objective there was a need to reduce the number of people who smoked. This includeed initiatives that helped prevent Halton’s children from becoming the next generation of smokers. It was reported that
internationally, smoking in public play areas and parks was already prohibited
in In the UK Inverclyde council in Furthermore, the Halton Smoke
Free Play areas initiative was being undertaken as a partnership between In conclusion, it was reported that children
from Oakfield primary school in The following points arose from the discussion:- · Concern was raised that employees could be at risk when giving advice and guidance to people smoking in play areas as it could create a confrontational situation. In response, it was reported that the survey had shown that there was a lot of public support for the proposal and the signs would be erected in play areas where children and young people congregated. It was also reported that it would not create conflict as the Wardens would only be highlighting the signs and passing on child friendly literature. In addition, the Wardens had been issuing Fixed Penalty Notices for a considerable time and were trained with the necessary skills to give advice and deal with aggressive people. It was also reported that Senior Managers had indicated ... view the full minutes text for item 25. |
|
Proposed Scrutiny Review of Homelessness Services PDF 22 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Communities which sought support to carry out a scrutiny review of Homelessness Services as outlined in Appendix 1 to the report. The
Board was advised that Councils had a
range of duties to those who were homeless or threatened with homelessness in
28 days and at the very least they were obliged to provide advice and
assistance on housing options. In addition, it was reported that some
households were owed the main homelessness duty, which was the provision of
settled accommodation. Local authorities were also expected to implement
services to prevent homelessness. The Board was further advised that to respond to the housing needs of those
who were homeless, it was necessary to provide a range of preventative support
services; and in addition to provide
temporary accommodation that could be accessed in emergencies until settled
accommodation could be found. It was reported that it was good practice to periodically assess the
effectiveness of the services provided and the report sought approval to carry
out a scrutiny review of the Councils duty in respect to homelessness and the
services we provided in response to that duty. The Chairman sought nominations
from Members of the Board to form a Member led scrutiny working group. RESOLVED: That (1)
a working group be established to review the
Homelessness Service; and (2)
the following Members be nominated onto the Working
Group:- ·
Councillor E Cargill; ·
Councillor Baker ·
Councillor C Loftus; ·
Councillor M Lloyd-Jones; ·
Councillor J Lowe; and ·
Councillor Wright |
|
Note: (Councillor M Lloyd Jones declared a Personal Interest in the following item of business due to her husband being a Non Executive Director of Halton & St Helens Primary Care Trust.) |
|
STANDING ORDER 51 Minutes: The Board was reminded that
Standing Order 51 of the Council’s constitution stated that meetings should not
continue beyond 9 pm RESOLVED: That Standing Order 51 be waived to allow the meeting continue beyond 9 pm. |
|
Model of Care to develop a comprehensive community learning disability services infrastructure for adults with learning disabilities Minutes: The Board
considered a report of the Strategic Director, Communities and the Primary Care
Trust which advised Members of the progress of the implementation of the Model
of Care and outlined the next steps. The Board was advised that in
2008 a review in-patient and community based learning disability services in
the boroughs of Halton, Knowsley, St Helens and It was
reported that the review had recommended the following:- ·
That the four boroughs and the PCTs agree to adopt a joint strategy of phased change to
locally determine models of service that further enhanced community focused
support and reduced reliance on specialist learning disability in-patient
services and out of area placements; ·
That
Commissioners ensured that admissions to in-patients units conformed to the
admission process set out in Section 14 of the recently agreed service
specification; ·
That
the four boroughs and the PCT agree to a reduction in the number of
commissioned in-patient beds, and that these should be placed together for
reasons of efficiency, effectiveness and economy, with consideration for the
most appropriate location to be subject of further discussion at the Alliance
Board; ·
That,
subject to local resource availability, and based on joint work between the PCT’s and the boroughs, early progress be made on the
expansion of community services through pump-priming investment; ·
That, a
project was commissioned to review best practice, and provide detailed
recommendations, by Autumn 2009 for the further development of community
focused services, in relation to the anticipated release of £2m from current
in-patient investment; and ·
That,
Commissioners gave consideration to the in-patient bed requirement beyond 2010,
in light of the planned expansion of community services, and secure appropriate
approvals for decisions in relation to the renewal of the current contract. Members noted the progress in Appendix 1 and the
following recommendations set out in the report:- ·
1 – develop ‘model of care’; ·
2 – in-patient admissions; ·
3 – reduction of in-patient beds; ·
4 – community services (pump priming); ·
5 – best practice/pathway; and ·
6 – in-patient contractual
requirements. Mr C Bean, Primary
Care Trust circulated a copy of the Stakeholder Engagement on the redesign of inpatient
and community helath services for adults with learning
disabilities at the meeting. The following
comments arose from the discussion:- ·
It was noted that in the economic climate and the changes
in the NHS Reforms that services would need to be shared. However, the importance of ensuring there was
adequate services for the people of Halton was also noted; ·
Clarity was sought on the reduction of beds and the impact
it would have on the people in the Borough.
In response, it was reported that beds were being reduced as they were not
being utilised. In addition, people were being supported
in the community and there was a commitment to ensure that what was commissioned
for Halton would meet the needs of the community. It was also reported that the monitoring framework
would be more robust; · The reasons for some young people ... view the full minutes text for item 28. |