Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Big plans, bright future

Adult Services & Health Select Committee (ceased to operate 02/04/2008) Minutes

Date:
Monday, 18th February, 2008
Time:
4.00 pm
Place:
Lecture Hall, Stockton Library, The Square, Stockton on Tees
 
Please note: all Minutes are subject to approval at the next Meeting

Attendance Details

Present:
Cllr Mrs Ann Cains (Chairman), Cllr Mrs Lynne Apedaile, , Cllr Dick Cains (vice Cllr Beall), Cllr Aidan Cockerill, Cllr Mrs Eileen Craggs and Cllr Ken Dixon.
Officers:
T.Beckwith, S.McEneany, Ms H.Grant (CESC); G.Birtle, N.Hart (LD).
In Attendance:
Cllr Mrs Aggio.
Apologies for absence:
submitted on behalf of Councillors Beall, Gardner, Javed and Mrs Nesbitt.
Item Description Decision
Public
ASH
70/07
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no Declarations of Interest recorded.
ASH
71/07
REVIEW OF PARKVIEW CARE HOME
CONCLUDED that the evidence provided be noted and the further information requested be provided to a future meeting of the Committee.
ASH
72/07
MOMENTUM - PATHWAYS TO HEALTHCARE
CONCLUDED that:-

1.This Committee declares both the proposed Consultation 1 and 2 to be a substantial variation under Section 244 of the NHS Act 2006 and requests that formal consultation on the proposals be carried out with all those affected and that a new Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee be formed for this purpose.

2. The principle of member representation of the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee being based on the formula used by the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust when selecting its Governors, be adopted as this Council's preferred option for representation.
ASH
73/07
WORK PROGRAMME
CONCLUDED that the report be noted.
4.30pm-7.00pm.

Preamble

ItemPreamble
ASH
71/07
Prior to the meeting the Committee visited the following Care Homes as part of their evidence gathering:-

- Parkview
- Mandale House
- The Poplars
- Aspen Gardens

The Committee then further reviewed the information provided at the previous meeting; including the projected costs of the continued operation of Parkview versus the cost of its closure and payment of independent sector care fees.

Members referred to the costs and extent of works necessary to bring the centre up to the required Grade 1 standard, which included the installation of en suite facilities. It was noted that the building would require a full structural architects survey to be undertaken, and members noted the practicalities involved in such provision and instances where such an upgrade could be difficult to accommodate.

The Head of Adult Operations explained the background to the decision not to proceed with the necessary capital improvement works based on the centre's under capacity, but stressed that maintenance of the facility (carpets, decor etc) had still been undertaken, as members visiting the premises had witnessed.Reference was made to the need to provide assurances to both Care Standards Commission and the Audit Commission that the authority was utilising its resources for best use; and it was noted that the unit costs for Parkview were double in comparison to those of the private sector.

Members requested clarification of the number of persons who had expressed a preference and had subsequently been unable to enter Parkview following the decision to cease further intake in April 07; and it was noted that 4 persons had been identified.

With regard to the possibility of converting part of the existing building into Extra Care provision, it was noted that the existing building would in all probability require significant structural modification, would require the participation of an independent provider, and would by necessity require the decanting of existing residents while the works were being carried out.

It was noted that the requested brochures/welcome pack for Parkview; along with any remaining clarification of financial information previously presented, would be provided to the next meeting of the Committee.
ASH
72/07
The Committee was advised that Local NHS bodies with an interest in the Momentum Programme had put forward proposals on what processes should be used to consult about implementing the Independent Reconfiguration Panel recommendations that have been endorsed by the Secretary of State. In effect two consultations have been proposed. The first relates to the proposed new hospital to serve Stockton on Tees, Hartlepool, Sedgefield and Easington and the implications for local series. The second relates to services serving Teesside as a whole.

The NHS bodies had envisaged undertaking these consultations simultaneously but had proposed that each element would need to be scrutinised by different joint scrutiny committees to reflect what they saw as the interest different Local Authorities might have in each element. This would have meant that related issues would have potentially been debated and comment on by two separate committees. More recently the NHS bodies have concluded that only the first consultation should take place with the second one following on at some stage in the future.

The two consultations are about the following

Consultation 1

(a)the location of the new hospital
(b)the functional content of the new hospital
(c)any relevant changes to services and facilities in a community setting as a result of (a) and (b)

Consultation 2

(d)the most specialised neonatal services serving Teesside as a whole
(e)other more specialised services or other services that might be relocated into the new hospital, for example, a different care model for urology following recent joint working across North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust and South Tees Hospitals NHS Trust.

Under Section 244 of the NHS Act 2006 (formerly Section 7 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001), when a NHS body is considering proposals to vary or develop health services, all Health Overview & Scrutiny/Select Committees of social service authorities whose residents are affected must be given the chance to decide whether they consider the proposals to be substantial to their communities. Those that do consider the proposal to be substantial must be formally consulted and must form a Joint Health Scrutiny Committee to respond to the consultation. The decision about whether the proposals are substantial (and therefore whether to participate in a joint Health Scrutiny Committee) must be taken by each individual Health Overview & Scrutiny/Select Committee.

The Committee was requested firstly to determine whether it considers the proposals outlined to be matters of substantial variation; and should it confirm that it is so, to invoke Section 244 of the Act and request that formal consultation on the proposals be carried out. As indicated earlier, it is intended by the NHS that Consultation 1 will be resolved prior to consideration of the wider issues involved in Consultation 2. Formal consultation (1) is scheduled to commence in June 2008 ; with preparations for consultation arrangements commencing from now until the end of May when agreement for a formal consultation plan with the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee is scheduled to take place.

Members were advised of the existing Tees Valley Joint Health Scrutiny arrangements that were in place and were informed that the opportunity now existed for the Council to consider its representation on any newly formed Joint Health Overview & Scrutiny/Select Committee for the purpose of Consultation 1, should it wish to do so; and whether it wished such a committee to be established along the lines of arrangements currently in place (eg 3 representatives from each authority declaring the matter to be a substantial change); or by other membership options which could include member representation based on a weighting given to those authorities representative of larger populations (eg similar to that used when selecting Governors by the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust). A meeting of the Tees Valley Joint Health Scrutiny Committee was to be held on the 25th February 2008 to consider any representations from those authorities that had declared the matter to be a 'substantial variation'.

ASH
73/07
The next meeting of the Committee would continue its consideration of the national and local policy framework around services for older people and the factual issues around Parkview Care Home focusing particularly on the building, occupancy, care standards, financial information and staffing; and would receive any further information available regarding scrutiny arrangements for 'Momentum-The Pathways to Healthcare' programme.

Can't find it

Can't find what you're looking for? Let us know and we'll do our best to point you in the right direction