Agenda item

The purpose of this report is to update the Committee on the Kent and Medway Integrated Care Board (KMICB) Community Services procurement including completion of bid evaluation and Contract Award, outlining next steps and key risks and associated mitigations.  The report also updates the Committee on communications and engagement plans.

Discussion:

The ICB’s Chief Strategy and Partnership Officer introduced the report, explaining that he had recently also taken on the role of Chief Delivery Officer and would therefore lead the commissioning aspects of the Community Services contract. He added that the forthcoming Government Spending Review announcements would provide some longer-term certainty for the NHS which would enable consideration of the total resources that could be invested across services. Equally, the Government’s awaited Ten-Year Plan was expected to prioritise a shift of services towards community and neighbourhood health, which was an ambition embedded in the Community Services project.

Members then raised a number of questions and comments, which included:

• Engagement – concern was raised about the level and effectiveness of engagement intended and it was requested that engagement be full, with people who have previously complained, service users and the wider public.  The offer of using the Council’s own connected networks for reaching wider sets of the community was reiterated. In response the Chief Strategy and Partnership Officer explained that there would need to be varying models of engagement depending on each aspect of the project. In addition, the ICB’s Chief of Staff confirmed that patient panels were often made up by people who had previously complained and had been invited in to engage as part of the response. She also reiterated that different methods were used to engage from small focus groups to large scale events and there was a focus on utilising community networks, including faith groups and Healthwatch. In addition, the ICB would be working with both Medway Council and Kent County Council, to maximise coverage through local authority connected communities.
• Lack of plan – confusion was raised about the lack of a transformation plan when the contract and financial envelope had been set and how the lead provider could demonstrate their ability to deliver when there was so much uncertainty about what services might look like. In response, the Chief Strategy and Partnership Officer confirmed that the ICB was clear in terms of the ambition it had for transformation and moving care out of acute settings into the community, building integrated services. Work was underway with clinicians to help shape potential models of care, particularly around frailty services. Within that context, the community services also needed to be responsive to emerging government objectives, particularly those that came with additional funding. Members stated they remained frustrated and anxious about the project and requested the ICB for a further update at the next meeting in August.
• Voluntary, Community, Faith and Social Enterprise (VCFSE) groups – in response to a question about representation of such groups within the transformation journey, the Chief Strategy and Partnership Officer undertook to confirm details of this once clear and with Kent Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (KCHFT) as the lead provider, to ensure widespread engagement with VCFSE.
• Flexibility within the contractual arrangement – with some uncertainties around financial settlement, transformation plan outcomes and the NHS Ten-Year Plan, it was asked if there was sufficient flexibility within the contractual arrangements to respond. The Chief Strategy and Partnership Officer explained that the contract had been let with services to be provided on an “as is” basis for the first year but with commitment from the lead provider to transform services within the financial envelope agreed (£1.8bn).
• Measuring progress – in response to a question about how progress will be measured, it was confirmed that as work progressed, key performance indicators would be identified and then measured against.
• Data sharing – reference was made to VCFSEs, a key part of the transformation journey, and their ability to make informed input into the process which could be hampered by the potential lack of oversight data that they would not have access to, compared to the ICB. In response it was explained that digital data sharing would be considered within the legal framework in place and ensuring protection of patient data.
• Kent and Medway Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (JHOSC) – reference was made to the need to engage with the JHOSC Members at KCC going forward as there was likely to be a need for meetings around cross-boundary Substantial Variations as they come forward for service changes that impact Kent and Medway.

Decision:

The Committee noted the report and requested the ICB to provide a further update at its next meeting in August