Agenda item

8.1  The chair proposed, and members agreed, that the sub-committee interview the cabinet member for Health and Adult Social Care at its 29 November meeting.

8.2  The scrutiny project manager outlined the process for health scrutiny committees to provide feedback on Quality Accounts (QAs). These are performance reports that NHS providers are required to publish annually. She commented that Southwark and a number of other local authorities are raising queries with the Department of Health regarding the provision for Health OSCs to assess QAs for national NHS providers: Southwark had been requested in 2009/10 to provide the national scrutiny response (in effect on behalf of health OSCs across the country) to the QA for NHS Direct, as their head office is located in the borough. The sub-committee would be informed of the DoH response.

8.3  Regarding the proposal from Tom White for an additional meeting regarding services at Marina House, members suggested that clarification first be sought from NHS Southwark, in particular about the provision for self-referral. It was agreed that the reply be shared with all members and an informal meeting held to decide whether to arrange a separate formal meeting.

8.4  Members discussed the issues that they would request PCT officers to clarify. These included, for example, the adequacy of the related consultation and the viability of co-locating across both sites the services that were to be moved to Blackfriars centre.

8.5  Members considered again the issues raised earlier in the meeting by the Albany Action Group. It was highlighted that the women who had used the Albany midwifery seemed very happy with the service, however, that KCH seems to be consulting widely about what replacement would be provided. Members also queried what aspect of this issue the sub-committee would scrutinise, in order to help ensure that people in Peckham have high quality services, as the mothers have openly admitted that they accept that the practice has been dissolved and are not expecting it to be re-instated. There was also discussion on whether to review the KCH decision, and so assess whether the trust should change its website statement regarding the cause for the closure.

8.6  Members suggested that the sub-committee write to KCH raising some of the concerns that the Albany group had highlighted and asking whether the trust would consider altering its website statement.

8.7  The chair invited members to propose review topics for the 2010/11 year. Three key suggestions were made as follows:

-  an assessment of the use of Equality Impact Assessments (EIAs) – to focus on examples from health and/or social care services;

-  NHS Southwark services for older people, - in particular personalisation and how Southwark will respond to a significantly reduced income;

-  how to improve integrated services.

8.8  The members who had suggested these topics agreed to develop a scoping document to share with the sub-committee, in order to clarify their review suggestion and outline how it could be approached.

RESOLVED:

1.  That Cllr Dixon-Fyle, Cabinet Member for Health & Adult Social Care, be invited to be interviewed at the sub-committee’s 29 November 2010 meeting.

  Quality Accounts

2.  That a paper be prepared for the 6 October meeting that outlines:

-  the sub-committee’s role and options in relation to Quality Accounts;

-  the related timeframe;

-  a list of the service providers from whom the sub-committee expects to receive a  QA in early 2011; and

-  the response from the DoH regarding the role of local scrutiny committees in reviewing regional or national service providers, such as NHS Direct.

Changes to drug and alcohol treatment services at Marina House

3.  That NHS Southwark be requested to provide the following information within two weeks:

-  Whether officers have looked further into the viability of co-locating the provision of the original services for drug and alcohol treatment based at Marina House, and those provided by the criminal justice system, at both the Marina House and Blackfriars sites (as requested at the previous sub-committee’s 17 March 2010 meeting), and if so, what has been the outcome;

-  whether NHS Southwark believes that it carried out the consultation on this service change according to the relevant statutory requirements and good practice guidance;

-  whether the issue regarding the reduction of self-referral has been properly consulted on and resolved.

4.  That Tom White, Southwark Pensioners’ Action Group, be invited to submit related documents regarding the quality of the consultation and the issue of self-referral.

5.  That members be invited to an informal meeting in July, to consider NHS Southwark’s response to the above request and the papers from Tom White, with the view to decide whether to schedule an additional formal meeting to further explore this issue.

Albany Midwifery Practice

6.  That a letter be sent to King’s College Hospital (KCH) requesting the following:

-  that KCH review the statement on their website that the Albany Midwifery Practice was closed due to safety concerns, and considers whether it would amend this to statement to refer to management rather than safety reasons;

-  that KCH provide appropriate details about whether it responded formally to the AIMS and NCT critique of the CMACE report; and if it didn’t whether it will do so now;

7.  That KCH be encouraged to include as many of the positive elements of the Albany Midwifery Practice in the replacement service as possible.

Reviews

8.  That the 3 members who offered to each scope a proposed review topic, submit their proposal to all members within two weeks of the meeting - i.e. by Wednesday 14 July (Cllr Coyle on Equality Impact Assessments; Cllr Noakes on Older People’s Services and Personalisation; Cllr Bukola on Improving integrated services);

9.   That all sub-committee members be invited to comment on and suggest amendments to the proposals within a week;

10.  And that all members then be requested to rank the 3 proposals according to their preferred priority – with the highest ranked suggestion forming the basis for the next HASC sub-committee scrutiny work.