Agenda and minutes

To receive apologies from members of the Committee unable to attend.

Apologies were received from Councillors Howlett and Thomas of Wandsworth Borough Council

To receive declarations of interest from councillors pertaining to items on

the agenda.

Councillor Burstow declared a personal interest in matters for discussion by virtue of her being married to a Minister in the Department for Health.  She clarified that Paul Burstow MP was a Minister with responsibility for Social Care and that the BSBV review was not minister lead.

[The meeting was adjourned at 6:40pm, for 30 minutes in order to allow members of the public in attendance to ask questions of officers form the NHS]

To receive the minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on

22 March 2012, and seek approval for signature by the Chairman. (Attached).

[The meeting reconvened at 7:10pm]

The minutes of the previous meeting, held on 22^nd march were agreed as a correct record and the Chairman authorised to sign them.

To receive further information regarding the membership of the JHOSC and its role, including a report of NHS South West London.

The Chairman sought nominations to the position of Vice Chairman.  Councillor Cummings nominated himself and was seconded by Councillor Fitzsimons. 

The committee voted.

It was RESOLVED that Councillor Cummings be elected as Vice Chairman for the duration of the Committee.

The Chairman brought the attention of the Committee to the two pieces of legal advice contained within the agenda, regarding the appointment of County Councillors from Surrey CC to the JHOSC and the conflicting advice that had been received.  The most recent advice was that Councillors from Surrey County Council should be appointed to the Committee.

The Committee expressed concern regarding the procedural implications for their individual Boroughs and local appointments procedures.  It was suggested that the Surrey Councillors be asked to joint as non-voting co-optees therefore negating the need for those authorities who felt it necessary to return to Full Council, to do so.

The committee discussed the issue of the BSBV having a wider impact than that of the South West London Borough members but was assured by those officers present from the NHS that they would be happy to engage with other Overview and Scrutiny Committees and resident Groups as requested and where the BSBV might impact.

To receive a presentation from Dr David Finch, of SWL NHS regarding the Integrated Impact Assessment process.

The Committee received a presentation from Dr David Finch the purpose of which was to report to the committee as requested on the plans and timetable for an Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) of the BSBV options to be undertaken.

During the presentation Dr Finch referred, in particular, to the following information:

(i)      That the IIA would take the form of a report, or series of reports, presenting the relevant evidence on the positive and negative effects of any proposed change and would outline recommended actions to address these findings, through an independent chair

(ii)    That the IIA would explore the consequences of the preferred reconfiguration option(s) and produce a set of evidence-based recommendations to maximise positive and minimize negative, impacts

(iii)   It would cover four key areas – health outcomes and inequalities, travel, equality and environment

(iv)  It is expected to appraise and report on the option(s) as outlined in the pre consultation business case (PCBC). It would be submitted to the JHOSC for review.  The purpose however was not to make decisions but to provide decision-makers with a full view of the impact of stated changes.

(v)    The IIA sits across the programme so that it will develop over the life of the BSBV

(vi)  It would be governed by a steering group which reports to joint boards through its independent chair.

The Committee discussed the presentation and the following comments were made and questions raised by councillors:

(i)      That in light of the fact that one of the four key areas was health inequality it did not make sense to put forward St Heliers for A&E closure as there was a evidence that some of the worst health statistics related to the residents of the area served.

(ii)    That it could be argued that the main driver?  for BSBV was financial rather than clinical.

(iii)   That it was important that the weightings assigned to different criteria  were reflective of their importance to residents.  For example, it was not satisfactory to create a centre of excellence that was not beneficial to the community owing to its distance from residents.

(iv)  That every effort must be made to engage hard to reach and hard to hear groups when consulting,  working closely with  LINkS and other patient representative groups.

(v)    That the committee wished to see the results of the scoring panel in more detail and would urge the BSBV team to release for public consumption the report by the independent  commissioned to deliver the scoring panel event

(vi)  That evidence presented to the committee should come from areas with similar demographics to SWLondon.

Officers provided the following information and responses to the comments made and questions raised:

(i)      That every effort to consult with as many people as possible including traditionally hard to hear groups would be made.  Suggestions from councillors and residents for groups and individuals with whom to consult were welcomed.  These should be sent to the Committee Clerk, Louise Hall at louise.hall@richmond.gov.uk to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

To receive a report of NHS South West London containing the most recent draft of the Communications and Engagement Strategy.

[Councillors Thompson and Bouchier left the meeting]

The Committee received a report of the SW London NHS Strategic Communications Lead the purpose of which was to allow consideration of the Communication and engagement strategy, in particular the preparation and delivery of the public consultation and post consultation phase and had been informed by an evaluation of the first phase of the strategy.

The Strategic Communications Lead introduced the report for the committee and referred to some of the key points within it, in particular she reminded the committee of the aims and objectives contained within the report and discussed the timetable, scope and key milestones also detailed therein.

The committee raised the following points for consideration:

(i)      That it was important that patients felt that they are the centre of concern and therefore should be at the top of any list of stakeholders or participants.

(ii)    That people with disabilities should be actively sought to take part in the consultation.

(iii)   That press releases from the NHS should promote the fact that the BSBV is clinician led.

(iv)  That it was important that residents were assured that services removed from one area would be replaced elsewhere whether at another hospital or in the community.

(v)    That GP’s were being asked to take on many new responsibilities and that this should be managed well in order to avoid negativity within the profession.

It was RESOLVED:

That the information in the report and issues raised by the committee be noted.

To discuss objectives and deadlines for the JHOSC.

It was RESOLVED

1. That the next meeting be held on the 21^st June at Croydon.
   
   
2. That the July meeting be hosted by the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames.  This date would be confirmed by the Clerk.
   
   
3. That the next meeting address the financial scoring exercise results and any other timely matters to be agreed by the Chairman and Vice Chairman.

To agree a date or dates for future meeting(s) of the Committee.

See previous minute. 

Other dates to be agreed via communication with the Clerk.