Agenda item

This report advises the Committee of the petitions presented at Council meetings, received by the Council or sent via the e-petition facility, including a summary of officer’s response to the petitioners.  One of the responses on the report is from NHS England, Kent and Medway Local Area Team which the Committee Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Labour Group Opposition Spokesperson agreed to the matter being discussed at this meeting.

Discussion:

The Chairman stated that there were two petitions to be considered, one relating to Delce Medical Centre the other relating to Izzatt Day Service.  As far as the Delce Medical Centre petition was concerned he reiterated the advice given that all discussion needed to be about planned provision for healthcare in Delce rather than about the specific contract details of an individual GP.

(a) Delce Medical Centre petition

Lady Mandy Richardson-Mills, on behalf of the lead petitioner, introduced the petition relating to Delce Medical Centre and explained the concerns felt by the patients of that Centre. 

She stated that since the suspension of Dr Elapatha by the General Medical Council (GMC) a series of locum doctors had been put in place, which meant that in the opinion of the patients, continuity of care was compromised.  The reason for this was that a high proportion of patients had multiple long-term conditions.  They felt that Dr Elapatha had known the patients for many years and was very familiar with their medical history.  The situation for those patients now was that they had appointments with a series of different locum doctors and with a short appointment time, the patients did not feel they had sufficient time to deal with their complex medical issues.  It was pointed out that the Delce Medical Centre was well positioned, hosted a number of clinics, and it was also very accessible by public transport.  The petitioners were also concerned that the GMC appeared to have suspended the doctor because of contractual issues.  Lady Richardson-Mills also asked why NHS England had not consulted with the patients at the practice.

The Medical Director, NHS England, Kent and Medway and the Head of Primary Care, NHS England, Kent and Medway responded to the petitioners and questions put forward by Members of the Committee.  They made the following specific points:

• While NHS England was responsible for contracting with Dr Elapatha they had no influence over the GMC decision about his suspension
• The GMC does not suspend a GP purely in relation to contractual issues
• It was agreed that the Rochester Healthy Living Centre is well sited, fit for purpose, with good public transport links and makes for an excellent location for a GP surgery. Confirmation was given that there were no plans to close the Rochester Healthy Living Centre building
• In the event Dr Elapatha agreed to disclose full details of his case it should be possible for NHS England, Kent and Medway to meet with the patients of Delce Medical Centre (without that permission it would not be appropriate for the matter to be discussed openly)
• Dr Elapatha has a duty to ensure a service is provided for the patients at the Delce Medical Centre and NHS England, Kent and Medway would be monitoring the service he put in place through locums whilst he cannot practice
• While it was accepted that there were some benefits to patients from attending a single-handed practice, this did place a heavy burden on those individual GPs.   It was explained that there was a general trend nationally to move away from single handed practices and in the future NHS England, Kent and Medway would be seeking to encourage larger practices and mergers/federations where possible as and when single handed practice GPs came up for retirement.  This would allow a wider range of services to be provided more efficiently
• It was confirmed that the quality of the service is monitored by NHS England 
• It was accepted that the existing arrangements for patients at Delce Medical Centre were not ideal and that a speedy conclusion to the issues was desirable for all concerned

Further discussion took place about the means by which the Committee could give assistance.  It was agreed that a letter should be sent to the GMC stressing the need for an early resolution between themselves and Dr Elapatha and that Healthwatch Medway could facilitate a meaningful discussion between NHS England, Kent and Medway with the patients of Delce Medical Centre but that this could only include details relating to Dr Elapatha’s case if he consented to this.

(b) Izzatt Day Service

The lead petitioner in relation to the petition requesting retention of the Izzatt Day Service did not attend the meeting.  A statement from the lead petitioner and Councillor Price was, however, handed round at the meeting to explain that the landlord Orbit had agreed to permit the ladies to continue to meet there for no charge which had been welcomed.  There was also a good level of dialogue with Age UK looking at some of the very specific transportation needs for some of the service users who have limited mobility and CVS were currently attempting to seek a volunteer to assist with activities.  The Committee noted this information.

Decision: 

(a) It was agreed that, in relation to the Delce Medical Centre petition:

(i)                 a letter be sent to the GMC, on behalf of the Committee, stressing the need for an early resolution with Dr Elapatha in the interests of the patients of the Delce Medical Centre;

(ii)               Healthwatch Medway are asked to facilitate a meaningful discussion between NHS England, Kent and Medway with the patients of Delce Medical Centre with the proviso that Dr Elapatha gives consent to the disclosure of the relevant documentation;

(iii)             NHS England, Kent and Medway should be invited to attend a future meeting of the Committee to discuss plans for the future provision of primary care

(b) The Council’s response to the petition relating to Izzatt Day Service was noted.