Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies were received from:

• Councillor Jones and Bouchier (London Borough of Richmond upon Thames)
  
  
• Councillor Nick Skellett (Surrey County Council)
  
  
• Councillors Howlett and Thomas (London Borough of Wandsworth) who were substituted by Councillors Randall and Walsh respectively.

To hear declarations of interest from members of the Committee relating to items on the agenda.

Councillor Burstow declared a personal, non – prejudicial interest in matters on the agenda by virtue of her husband holding a role within the Department of Health as MP for Sutton and Cheam.

To seek the agreement of the committee for the Chairman to sign the minutes of the previous meeting as a true and accurate record.

The minutes of the previous meeting were agreed as an accurate record and the Chairman authorised to sign them subject to the following amendments to the attendance details:

Councillor Howlett to be removed from the attendance list. Councillor Neil Houston to be added to the attendance list.

In addition Councillor Thompson’s name had been spelt incorrectly throughout, having the p missing.

To receive questions from the floor for the Officers present from the BSBV team. 

[The Chairman has indicated that this session will last no longer than 30 minutes.  Written questions may be submitted for a written answer]

The Committee held a short question and answer session.

1. Officers were asked to explain the perceived lack of public involvement in the BSBV scoring process.  Charlotte Joll, explained the process that had taken place in order to ensure as wide a range of involvement as possible and reported that this would be further clarified during the presentation to be tabled under a later agenda item.
   
   
2. Officers were asked to explain the lack of information currently in the public domain regarding the financial scoring exercise.  It was reported that the exercise had not been fully signed off, in the way that the non financial exercise had.  When this had happened all of the information would be available for inspection.

To receive a presentation from SWLNHS BSBV team members providing an overview of options development and the evaluation process, both financial and non-financial and the options emerging from this process.

The Committee received a presentation from the Better Services Better Value team.  In attendance to speak to the presentation were Charlotte Joll, Programme Director, Mike Bailey, Acute Medical Director, Dr David Finch, Joint Medical Director, Rory Hegarty, Communications Lead and Tim Thomas, associate, 2020 Delivery.

Mike Bailey addressed the Committee and reminded members of the original case for change, the non financial scoring exercises conducted to date and the preliminary outcomes.  He reported that the scoring exercise had been assessed by the Consultation Institute and had received a Certificate of Compliance confirming that the event had observed best practice standards as per the Consultation Charter.

In response to questions raised and comments made Mike Bailey reported the following information:

(i)      That it was expected that 50% of St Helier A&E patients would continue to access the walk-in services offered there.  Of the remaining 50% it was expected that 23% would seek treatment at Epsom and that this would equate to 30 patients per day.

(ii)    That the planned merger between Epsom and [?] was not expected to change those predictions.

(iii)   The remaining 27% was expected to split evenly between the remaining 3 hospitals.

Tim Thomas, associate at 2020 Delivery took the floor to discuss the Financial Scoring exercise, process and outcomes.  In particular he referred to the following information:

(i)      The 8 financial criteria and the three categories within which they fell, namely, Commissioner Sustainability, Provider Sustainability and Deliverability.

(ii)    These criteria were tested by one of two means, a hurdle test or a financial measure.

(iii)   Of the five options (St Helier was tested twice to ensure that the funding identified there did not skew the BSBV findings) two were identified as satisfying the criteria, one marginally and the other wholly.  These two options were Croydon to become an elective surgery centre and St Helier to become and elective surgery centre, respectively.

(iv)  The recommendation from the Clinical Commissioning Board was that further work be carried out on both of these options before the final preferred option was chosen by the Programme Board in July. 

(v)    Mr Thomas accepted the frustration of some of the councillors that Croydon was identified as an option only because certain adjustments had been made to the figures but assured the committee that this was in order to ensure every option was fully investigated.

Tim Thomas [job title] took the floor to explain in more detail the financial information.

In response to questions raised and comments made he offered the following information for the committee:

(i)      That the test regarding the financial viability of Foundation trusts was a test concerning their viability as a whole not as separate trusts.

(ii)    That  consideration was taken of the amount of Capital required and the transition costs that would be needed for any option to go ahead.  However, this had not skewed the results towards St Helier in respect of the funds earmarked for development as two separate tests had been carried  ...  view the full minutes text for item 28.

To receive a report of the Office for Public Management detailing their findings from the 9^th May event to score options for the Better Services Better Value, review.

The Committee received report of the Office for Public Management (OPM) presented by Mike Bailey, Acute Medical Director of the review, the purpose of which was to report the full results from the non-financial scoring panel event.

The Committee thanked the BSBV for tabling the report, and had no further requests for information.

It was RESOLVED that the OPM report be NOTED.

To receive a verbal update on the progress of the commissioned NCAT report on the Better Services Better Value Review.

The Committee received a verbal report from Mike Bailey, Acute Medical Director, BSBV, on the progress of a report to be received from the National Clinical Advisory Team (NCAT) on the progress of the review to.

NCAT had alerted BSBV officers to some reservations that they had at the time of writing the report particularly regarding the assumptions made regarding shifting care into the Community from hospital settings and also about the levels of staffing assumed under various options.

They had visited the team and spent the day interviewing officers and assessing other evidence and they have confirmed verbally that they are now suitable reassured, enough so that the report is likely to be a positive one.

It would be prepared in two weeks and would then proceed to NHS London and then to the BSBV team programme Board.  There would be opportunities at both stages for the relevant people to respond to the report.  The Programme Board would take a decision on the release of the report for general consumption.

In response to questions raised and comments made the Committee heard the following information from BSBV officers:

(i)      That NCAT had raised concerns regarding the infrastructure that would be expected to carry out the changes recommended but that having visited the team were satisfied that enough had been done that this was achievable by 2017.

(ii)    That where organisations ceased to exist and would have been responsible for implementing parts of the BSBV other organisations or bodies would take over.  Changes to the structure of the NHS as a whole would not affect the implementation of the, clinically lead, review.

It was RESOLVED that:

The Programme Board be requested to publish the NCAT report once received, reviewed and responded to.

To discuss the latest key stage dates for the BSBV and the JHOSC, including discussion of dates for future meetings.

The Committee received a verbal update on the programme progress and next steps. 

The Committee discussed the work programme for the review and how it might best influence that process; in particular the following important stages were identified:

(i)      That the pre-consultation business case would be written for July.

(ii)    That the Consultation process and timeline would be reviewed by the Committee in July. 

(iii)   That during the pre-consultation period the Committee should assess and add to the planned consultees and methods of consulting.

It was requested that a list of those people with whom consultation was planned to take place be produced and distributed before next meeting in order that Councillors could add to it in advance of any discussion at the next meeting of the Committee.

RESOLVED

1. That the next meeting of the Committee be held on Tuesday 24^th July 2012 at 7pm at London Borough of Richmond upon Thames Council offices.
   
   
2. That this meeting address:

·         The pre-consultation business case

·         Consultation document and planned consultees

·         Planned Witnesses and timescales for interviews.

·         Terms of Reference update.

3.      That a meeting take place meeting on 3rd September 2012 at 7pm at London Borough of Kingston upon Thames offices .

4.      That this meeting address:

·         The amended Consultation document.

·         The final version of the PCBC

·         Update on IIA

5.      That a meeting of the JHOSC be held on 3^rd October 2012, 7pm venue to be confirmed, if needed.