Agenda item

This report provides Members with an overview of MCH’s current position of community health services provision.

Discussion:

The following issues were discussed:

·       Waiting times – concern was expressed about waiting times over 18 weeks. MCH’s Director of Operations agreed this was unacceptable, but only a small number of people waiting for a service were in this category. Recruiting staff to work in children’s therapy was problematic. There was a speech therapists apprenticeship scheme, but it was very difficult to recruit in this area.

·       Room availability and parking facilities – noting the problems these issues were causing MCH, whether the Council could do anything to help was queried.  The lack of a premises strategy from the CCG was considering to be a contributing factor. The Director of Operations advised that hopefully by January rooms currently being used as vaccination clinics would be freed up, which would allow waiting times to be significantly reduced. MCH were trying to use their estate as efficiently as possible but the need to have in place infection control measures was also limiting room usage.

Concern was expressed regarding the 4-hour parking restrictions at some sites, as this was affecting the ability of staff to clear the waiting lists backlog. 

·       Staff absences – the reasons behind the overall staff absence rate of 5.32% were queried. The Director of Operations advised most absences were due to stress, anxiety and fatigue. Staff were able to access a variety of health and wellbeing schemes.

·       Integrated discharge team – with regard to the extent to which poor provider capacity was causing difficulties in this area, Members were advised that patients at home with complex needs presented the greatest challenge as providers needed to be more skilled. An assurance was given that the new care providers referred to were appointed following due diligence.

·       Compliments and complaints – it was agreed that future reports would  include a breakdown of complaints by service and also the number of service users to put complaints numbers in proportion.  In terms of how Grumbles were defined, MCH advised that if a person made contact verbally to raise an issue then this was classed as a Grumble. An issue raised in writing was classed as a complaint.

·       Phlebotomy services – in response to a question about the new online booking system, Members were advised that patients had found the new system easy to use so far.

·       Urgent care hub pilot – an update on this would be included in the next report.

·       Power of attorney – in respond to a query, Members were advised that if a person had capacity then their package of care would be discussed with them. If MCH believed a person was not acting in their best interests but had capacity then they would ask permission to speak to the family. If a person did not have capacity then MCH would speak to the person with power of attorney and, in the absence of the latter, the next of kin. The key to deciding if a person had capacity was whether they were able to recognise the consequences of decisions.

Decision:

The Committee agreed to:

a)      note the report.

b)      request a briefing paper on room availability and space.

c)      recommend that the Council investigate the issue of parking restrictions at some of MCH’s sites.