Agenda item

This report seeks approval to the establishment of a Kent and Medway Joint Health and Wellbeing Board (KAMJHWB) on 1 April 2018 for an initial period of two years to secure a collaborative approach between the Kent and Medway Health and Wellbeing Boards as they contribute to the development of the Sustainability and Transformation Partnership (STP) Plans. It is proposed to constitute the Joint HWB as an Advisory Sub Committee of both Boards as provided for in the Health and Social Care Act 2012.

Discussion

At the September meeting of the Medway Health and Wellbeing Board there had been a brief discussion about the possibility of establishing joint health and wellbeing arrangements with the Kent Health and Wellbeing Board in order to secure a collaborative approach across the two boards in relation to the Kent and Medway Sustainability and Transformation Plan. Since then there had been the announcement of the establishment of a single strategic commissioner for health in Kent and Medway and the creation of two integrated care systems to cover the Kent and Medway geography.

It was now being proposed to establish an advisory joint sub-committee between the Medway and Kent Boards. Both Boards would continue to discharge their statutory responsibilities separately. It was anticipated that the joint sub-committee would focus on discussion of shared issues in relation to public health, social care and local health and wellbeing priorities.

The Medway Health and Wellbeing Board was being asked to agree to the establishment of the new advisory sub-committee for an initial period of two years. This would then need to be agreed by the Kent Board. Regular updates on the work of the sub-committee would be provided to each Board

Members agreed to the principal and importance of establishing joint arrangement while also noting the importance of Medway maintaining its own Health and Wellbeing Board.

A Board Member was concerned that the joint arrangements may need to expand further in the future to include other areas as was happening in relation to the Kent and Medway Joint HOSC in relation to discussion of the Kent and Medway Stroke review. The JHOSC was being expanded to include Bexley and East Sussex. It was confirmed that these discussion were specific to the stroke services consultation because of current arrangements and geographic considerations. There may be some work that involved other areas but this would need to be determined on a case by case basis.

A Board Member was pleased that the joint sub-committee would have parity of membership between Kent and Medway and noted that the new Joint HOSC involving Medway, Kent, Bexley and East Sussex would also have parity of membership with Kent as would the existing Kent and Medway joint HOSC going forward.

A consultation was currently being held in relation to the reconfiguration of stroke services in Kent and Medway. Consultation respondents were being asked to choose from five possible three site options for the future location of stroke services. The options were as follows:

1. Darent Valley, Medway, William Harvey
2. Darent Valley, Maidstone, William Harvey
3. Maidstone, Medway, William Harvey
4. Tunbridge Wells, Medway, William Harvey
5. Darent Valley, Tunbridge Wells, William Harvey

The Member said that his first preference would be option D followed by the other options that included Medway. The Director of Public Health said that analysis undertaken suggested that option D would be preferred as it maximised the number of patients living within specified journey times of their nearest site.

It was also noted that two listening events would take place in Medway in Rochester on 5 March and Gillingham on 20 March.

Decision

The Health and Wellbeing Board agreed:

(i)   The establishment of a new Kent and Medway Joint Health and Wellbeing Board (KAMJHWB) constituted as an Advisory Sub Committee, with Terms of Reference and procedure rules as set out in Appendix 1 to the report.

(ii)  That the membership of the Sub Committee should be as set out in paragraph 5 of Appendix 1 to this report.

(iii)That the role and continuation of the KAMJHWB should be reviewed after two years.

(iv)That the Monitoring Officer should add a reference to the Sub Committee and include its Terms of Reference in the Council’s Constitution under his delegation to make minor changes to the Constitution.