Agenda and minutes
PDF 110 KBVenue: ORTUS Learning & event centre, Denmark Hill Campus, 82 - 96 Grove Lane, Camberwell, London, SE5 8SN
Contact: Julie Timbrell
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies
Minutes: Apologies had been received from Councillor Margaret Meade. |
|
|
NOTIFICATION OF ANY ITEMS OF BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIR DEEMS URGENT
Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS AND DISPENSATIONS
Minutes: Councillor Hall and Councillor Muldoon declared that they were elected Public Governors of the South London NHS Foundation trust.
Councillor Bill Williams declared he was a governor at Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation trust.
Councillor Dyer declared that she was the NHS Equalities Lead for Mental Health.
|
|
|
MINUTES
To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 26 April 2016. Supporting documents: Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 26 April 2016 were agreed as a correct record. |
|
|
SLAM'S PLACE OF SAFETY PROPOSAL
A report from South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM) on their central Place of Safety proposal, addressing the recommendations of the committee at the last meeting, is enclosed. Supporting documents: Minutes: Kristen Dominy, Director of Adult Social Care for SLAM and Cath Gormally, Director of Social Care for SLAM, informed the meeting that:
• A wide network of colleagues had been involved with the engagement work. • A further period of engagement with colleagues from all involved boroughs had taken place and had proved valuable. • A comprehensive engagement plan had been created leading on to more detailed areas of action. • Part of the consultation included an open day on 9 August 2016 which was attended by 200 people. The logistics to reach agreements with four local authorities had been agreed in principle, particularly in relation to statutory duties and the creation of a Memorandum Of Understanding for all involved boroughs. Full details were yet to be agreed. • The Committee’s approval was sought by all parties on the Place of Safety Proposal. |
|
|
STAKEHOLDERS VIEWS ON THE PLACE OF SAFETY PROPOSAL
Local police forces and Healthwatches have provided the enclosed submissions. Supporting documents: Minutes: The stakeholders, Inspector Claire Robbins and Terri Collins (Police), Darren Morgan (Healthwatch), Fiona Connelly and Moira McGrath (Lambeth), Jay Stickland and Dick Frak (Southwark), Kenneth Gregory and Amy Ducton (Lewisham) gave their views and informed the meeting that:
• A series of meetings had been held and a Memorandum Of Understanding had been drawn up which had been primarily agreed by all the involved boroughs. • Discussions had been held regarding those who may need to use the Place of Safety facility who were based outside of the involved boroughs. • There were specific issues relating to resources at Lewisham. Partial re-structure at Lewisham was required as AMHPS based in Lewisham were shared with Children’s Services. This could result in a temporary staff-shortage if staff were required to travel to the Place of Safety facility. • Representatives for the borough of Southwark stated that the Memorandum of Understanding needed to lead to a legally binding agreement between the involved boroughs. • The Memorandum of Understanding also needed to be used as a template or as a guidance for consulting with other boroughs so that there was clarity on the practice for service users who may use the facility but were based outside of the involved boroughs. • All activities occurring in relation to the use of the Place of Safety facility would be closely recorded and addressed. • It was not clear how much time it took to commute from Croydon to Southwark in rush hour traffic. • All the involved boroughs would be impacted in different ways due to the implementation of a single Place Of Safety and arrangements would be made to ensure that no involved borough was any more significantly impacted than another involved borough. • A joint action plan may be required to resolve any of the unresolved issues. • The use of more than one Place of Safety was not likely to be financially or practically viable although the option could have been more closely considered. • There had been a general agreement that the implementation of the Place of Safety would be “cost neutral” for all the involved boroughs. However, this did not appear to be inclusive of the local authorities specifically. Representatives for the borough of Lewisham had advised that there were likely to be additional costs incurred by Lewisham Council. • There was concern with regard to the specific points of action which may need to be taken in the event that the Place of Safety facility was full. It was thought that the facility could become full as other facilities located in other areas may not be available and service users from other boroughs may be directed to the facility. • In the event that the Place of Safety facility was full, the next nearest available facility was the St George’s Trust in Wandsworth. • The Police would telephone facility staff before escorting potential service users to the facility in case the facility was full. To help alleviate ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
|
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
Minutes: The Place of Safety Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee welcomes the considerable progress that has been made and thanks all agencies for their work
The committee recommends:
1. That the Memorandum Of Understanding be signed by all four boroughs with the aim of its completion being reported back to the Committee by the end of October.
2. That SLAM facilitate a monthly review with aim of moving towards legal agreement with the four involved local authorities.
3. That SLAM address the following concerns: a) the ongoing role of Healthwatch in the evaluation and review process undertaken by SLaM now and as the project continues b) evidencing of travel times from each borough to place of safety c) explanation of what cost neutral means and how it applies to the Councils and CCGs. This is also to be outlined in full to the Committee in writing.
4. The Committee would like to receive a summary of monthly review papers and may recall SLAM in the event of serious concern.
5. That SLAM return to a final meeting of this committee in six months time.
|