Agenda and minutes

• 23 March 2010
• Joint meeting of all Committees – 19 May 2010

The record of the meeting held on 23 March 2010 and the record of the joint meeting of all Committees held on 19 May 2010 were agreed and signed by the Chairman as correct.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Carr (Chairman),
Val Goulden, Hewett, Kemp and Murray.

(a)               Personal interests under the Medway Code of Conduct.

A Councillor who declares a personal interest in a matter, including the nature of the interest, may stay, speak, and vote on the matter.

(b)               Prejudicial interests under the Medway Code of Conduct.

A Councillor who declares a personal and prejudicial interest in a matter, including the nature of the interest, must withdraw from the room and take no part in the debate or vote on the matter.

Councillors who have declared a personal and prejudicial interest may make representations, answer questions and give evidence before leaving the room but only if members of the public are allowed to attend for the same purpose.

If an interest is not declared at the outset of the meeting, it should be disclosed as soon as the interest becomes apparent.

(c)               Whipping – the Council’s constitution also requires any Member of the Committee who is subject to a party whip (ie agreeing to vote in line with the majority view of a private party group meeting) to declare the existence of the whip and the nature of it before the item is discussed.

Councillor Gilry declared a personal interest in any reference to Medway Maritime Hospital by virtue of the fact that she occasionally works there.

Shirley Griffiths, LINk Co-ordinator, declared a personal interest by virtue of being a member of Medway NHS Foundation Trust, a member of South East Coast Ambulance Trust, Medway Older People’s Board and a GP Patient Forum Member.

Councillor Sheila Kearney declared a personal interest by virtue of being a member of Medway NHS Foundation Trust and South East Coast Ambulance Trust.

This report advises the Committee on the current work programme.  It gives Members the opportunity to shape and direct the Committee’s activities for the forthcoming year. 

Discussion:

The Overview and Scrutiny Co-ordinator introduced the work programme and

stated that a Health Scrutiny Toolkit had been produced for each member of the Committee and handed round prior to the meeting.  She undertook to take note of any comments or suggested additions.

Reference was then made to the fact that at the meeting of Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee held on 25 May 2010 a reference was sent to this Committee in relation to difficulties experienced with Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust with regards to data collection.  She said that the Assistant Director, Social Care would refer to the details under the end of year performance report.

Members were then referred to paragraph 5 of the report, which suggested topics for future themed meetings.  With regards to the suggestion of safeguarding vulnerable adults guidance had been produced by the Centre for Public Scrutiny and Improvement and Development Agency on scrutinising safeguarding adults and it was suggested that this could be helpful in planning for that meeting. A link to the guide had been sent to each member.

In response to a question she stated that the scoping of the themed meeting would need to take place at the work programme planning meeting referred to in paragraph 14.5 of the report.

As far as Quality Accounts were concerned Members were informed that the health scrutiny committees and LINk had the option to comment to the provider trusts whereas the Primary Care Trust or Strategic Health Authority were under an obligation to comment.  On the basis that there had not been much time this year for the Quality Accounts to be produced it was suggested that no comment was made and in future a delegated authority was requested to allow this to be dealt with outside of the Committee.

Decision:

The Committee agreed:

(a)               that safeguarding vulnerable adults is selected for the theme for the
19 August 2010 meeting with transition and mental health being accepted as subsequent themes;

(b)               to note the information report from Councillor Avey with regard to the lung cancer and mesothelioma forum meeting held on 27 April 2010;

(c)               that a recommendation is made to Council, in accordance with Chapter 4, part 5 of the constitution, to co-opt a non-voting representative from Medway Pensioners Forum on to the Committee;

(d)               that the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and spokespersons of the Committee should meet after 3 June 2010 to consider the forward work programme and discuss the scoping of the themed meeting in August and report back to the 15 July meeting;

(e)               that delegated authority is given to the Assistant Director (Customer First, Leisure, Democracy and Governance) as the Council’s designated Scrutiny Officer, in consultation with the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and spokespersons of the Committee and the Assistant Director, Social Care, to comment, if appropriate, on quality accounts submitted by provider trusts in future years;

(f)                 that the LINk project and issues summary attached to the report is noted;

(g)               to note that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53.

The Chief Executive of Medway NHS Foundation Trust will be present to discuss the action plan developed in response to the conditions imposed on registration by the Care Quality Commission. 

Discussion:

Councillor Avey, as Chairman of the meeting, welcomed Mark Devlin, Chief Executive of Medway NHS Foundation Trust, to his first meeting of the Committee and congratulated him on the article in the Health Service Journal indicating that Medway Maritime Hospital was named as being in the top 40 hospitals in the country.

The Chief Executive, Medway NHS Foundation Trust, introduced the action plan, which was the Trust’s response to the conditions imposed by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and emphasised that none of the conditions were restrictive which meant that the business of the Trust could proceed as normal. He then responded to Members’ questions following which he set out the progress, which had been made against each condition.

At the request of the Committee, he agreed to share information relating to the lifting of the conditions by CQC once that had taken place.

Decision:

The committee agreed to:

(a)               note the report;

(b)               note that once the conditions on Medway NHS Foundation Trust, were lifted, this would be shared with the Committee.

To consider a petition referred to this Committee from a previous Council meeting in relation to the hydrotherapy pool at Medway Maritime Hospital. 

Discussion:

With the agreement of the Committee, Christine Baker from Medway Pensioner’s Forum introduced the petition submitted to the Council meeting on 25 February 2010.  She explained the history of the issue, which she had originally raised at a meeting of this Committee on 20 August 2009.  She stated that the reason for bringing the petition was that there had been little progress made since August in resolving the matter.  Numerous meetings had been promised, some of which had taken place but the matter had not progressed.  She explained that she had a report into the clinical need for hydrotherapy and, later agreed to share this with the Director of Commissioning and Performance, NHS Medway.

Members then queried why it had taken so long to achieve a resolution to the matter particularly as the commissioned report on the pool had been with NHS Medway since mid May 2010.  Members made clear their considerable disappointment that the matter had not been resolved, particularly bearing in mind that public money had been used to build the hydrotherapy pool.  Although one of the options being put forward was to continue commissioning services in other NHS funded pools Members felt that a Medway based option was important.   Members and NHS colleagues agreed that the use of any facility already used by the public would need to be carefully managed and was not ideal.

The Director of Commissioning and Performance, NHS Medway explained that all three options set out in the report were being seriously considered as genuine options and it was important for NHS Medway to consider the clinical need for hydrotherapy in addition to the costs of re-commissioning the pool or using other local facilities.   This was particularly important in the current economic climate for the public sector.  As such value for money would be an important consideration.

In response to Members’ requests the Director of Commissioning and Performance, NHS Medway, undertook to process the issue speedily and keep Members informed.

Decision:

The committee agreed to:

(a)               note the report;

(b)               agree that details of the completed survey should be shared with the committee and lead petitioner, with a copy being sent to the Overview and Scrutiny Co-ordinator, to keep the committee informed of progress.

This report presents Council performance for the year 2009/10.  In particular it includes performance against indicators and actions agreed in the Council Plan 2009-12. 

Discussion:

The Assistant Director, Adult Social Care introduced the report to Members, highlighting the key areas from quarter 4 (January to March 2010) performance monitoring.

Officers responded to Members’ questions. In relation to NI 146 adults with learning disabilities in employment he explained that the economic downturn had seriously affected employers’ ability to employ people with learning disabilities.  A number of local cafes, which had provided much needed employment for people with learning disabilities, had recently closed.  This explained the drop in performance on this target.  He stated that the Council was working hard to ensure that as an employer it set the standard for other local employers in offering employment to people with learning disabilities.

In relation to the contingency plans put in place in January 2010 when there had been significant snowfall in Medway, Members commended the commitment, professionalism and innovation of staff in responding to the challenges.

The Assistant Director, Adult Social Care then referred to the issue raised by Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee in relation to the lack of performance data received from Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust.  He stated that one of the Council’s key actions would be to improve in gathering this performance data.  He undertook to report back on progress to the Committee and to Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee in due course.

Decision:

The committee agreed to:

(a)               note the report;

(b)       submit a report to the Business Support Overview and Scrutiny Committee at its July meeting setting out the committee’s proposed action to the referral relating to Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust as set out above;

(c)               congratulate the social care staff for their commitment, professionalism and innovation during the heavy snowfall in January 2010.

This report from NHS Medway sets out a portfolio of plans for new or refurbished facilities to address health need, poor and temporary infrastructure and new populations arising from the regeneration agenda locally.  The Assistant Director (Property) will introduce the report by using a powerpoint presentation.

Discussion:

The Assistant Director (Property) NHS Medway introduced this report by using a powerpoint presentation.   She explained the reasons for developing the estates strategy and emphasised the importance of working with other key partners, including Medway Council, to make sure that the right infrastructure was put in place.

She stated that by greater collaboration with partners there could be rationalisation of the wider estate whilst still maintaining local access.  This was consistent with national policy around ensuring better use of facilities and would not necessarily result in short term solutions but over the ten year period of the strategy would be an influencing factor in the transformation of the estate.

The location of facilities was based on a 3 tier model.  Tier 1 relates to mostly single units, eg a GP practice, a community pharmacy, dental practice.   The aim was that the public should be within a ten minute walk of this option.

Tier 2 relates to a wider range of co-located services, ie those typically found in a Community Healthy Living Centre, together with out of hospital services, which do not require admission or specialist facilities.   The aim was for people to be within 25 minute walk or 10 minute car drive of these services.

Tier 3 relates to acute and emergency care, including mental health and also community in-patient facilities, eg intermediate care beds, palliative care beds and inpatient facilities for elderly mentally ill patients.  These would be centrally available.

In response to a question the Assistant Director (Property) stated that specific software had been used to map the distances in Medway and she would value intelligence and feedback from Members about the practicality of the information.  Mention was made that while on a map it may look like a 10 minute walk in reality it would much longer than that due to the fact that there were very busy roads there which could not easily be crossed by the public, and this feedback was welcomed.

In relation to the development at Balmoral Gardens she explained that an in-house pharmacy would be bringing in revenue to NHS Medway.  The Chief Executive of NHS Medway emphasised the importance of capitalising on any opportunity to save money or bring in revenue and the need for more partnership working was recognised.

Following questions relating to the possible demolition of the original Edwardian building at Medway Maritime Hospital and whether this meant that the hydrotherapy pool would be affected.  The Chief Executive of Medway NHS Foundation Trust explained that a number of projects originally planned by the hospital would no longer be feasible within the planned timeframe on the grounds of affordability In response to a question he confirmed that this also applied to the original plans to have new single bed wards. However, he emphasised that there was no specific intention to decommission the hydrotherapy pool within the Trust’s estates strategy.

The Assistant Director, Adult Social Care, in responding to a question set out the plans for the new development for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.