Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Big plans, bright future

Adults' Health and Wellbeing Commissioning Group Minutes

Date:
Monday, 24th October, 2016
Time:
1.30 p.m.
Place:
Conference Room 2, Municipal Building, Church Road, Stockton on Tees
 
Please note: all Minutes are subject to approval at the next Meeting

Attendance Details

Present:
Emma Champley, Cllr Jim Beall, Liz Hanley, Sean McEneany
Officers:
Dave Smith (PH), Jenna McDonald (DCE)
In Attendance:
Paula Swindale (Hartlepool and Stockton CCG)
Apologies for absence:
Jayne Herring, Karen Hawkins
Item Description Decision
Public
AHW
18/16
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
AHW
19/16
MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 20 SEPTEMBER 2016
RESOLVED that the minutes be approved.
AHW
20/16
CARERS UPDATE
RESOLVED that the Carers Update be deferred for consideration at a future meeting.
AHW
21/16
TEES SEXUAL HEALTH SERVICE REVIEW AND PROCUREMENT
RESOLVED that:

1. The report be noted.

2. A note be taken to the Health and Wellbeing Board.
AHW
22/16
FORWARD PLAN
RESOLVED that the Forward Plan be noted.

Preamble

ItemPreamble
AHW
19/16
Consideration was given to the minutes of the meeting held on 20 September 2016.
AHW
21/16
The Group was presented with a report which provided information around the Tees Sexual Health Service Review and Procurement.

Key points were highlighted as follows:

- The local sexual health service provided a fully integrated, community based sexual health service across the four local authorities in Teesside.

- The integrated service included formerly hospital based GUM (Genito-Urinary Medicine) and community based CASH (Contraception/ Family planning) services.

- The sexual health service offered full sexual health and contraception services including STI testing and treatment, chlamydia screening, HIV testing, post exposure prophylaxis for HIV, contraception, long acting contraception (LARC), sterilisation, vasectomy, cervical screening and psychosexual counselling.

- The service also delivered outreach services in schools, colleges and other settings to provide low threshold access to sexual health services for young people and other at risk groups.

- The service prior to procurement was provided through four hubs and a number of spoke clinics, outreach and subcontracted services based in the four local authorities in Teesside.

- Local authorities were mandated to provide open access and free of charge sexual health services.

- It was noted that it was a requirement of all Local Authority commissioners to secure a 7.4% cost saving within their investment based upon previous contract budget, in a newly procured service, an objective that was successfully achieved.

- The maximum contract value including all potential extensions was circa 40 million.

- The newly procured service was delivered by the prime provider Virgin Care who held subcontracts with specialist providers to deliver an integrated offer.

- The newly procured contract was in place for five years from the 01 August 2016 until 31 July 2021 (at a value of circa 20million) with option to extend the contract twice, each extension for a period of 24 months

- The contract was managed on behalf of all seven commissioners by the Tees Valley Public Health Shared Service.

- The procurement had been audited by SBC internal audit and received full assurance.

Members noted the report and raised the following points/questions:

- With regard to timescales, it was noted that it was important to ensure that the authority had a realistic view of the timescale for the review and allowed more time if necessary as opposed to reaching the end of the timescale and requesting an extension.

- Members discussed point 1.2 of the table detailed on page 3 of the report. It was noted that the Council had a constitution and written delegated decision making within the organisation and therefore it was suggested that where possible and dependant upon the nature of decision, the relevant officers could make decisions and then circulate the decision to groups/committees for information as opposed to making the decision with the group/committee.

- It was noted that if an agreement was achieved at the beginning of a process, the process would me made much more simple for commissioners as it allowed for time to concentrate on service design.

- It was asked whether there were any situations whereby one CCG leads on behalf of two or whether it all came under NECS.

- Members agreed that when there was a high value and complex programme of work, particularly where there was more than one commissioner, it was important that organisation were committed to providing appropriate employee capacity to undertake the work, in order that it was recognised as a priority and was supported in practice. Where one organisation was identified as leading the commissioning / procurement of services, it should be acknowledged that there was a significant commitment by that lead organisation, in terms of legal, process and administrative responsibility. Such input incurred costs that needed to be recognised. It was agreed that this should be highlighted with the Health and Wellbeing Board with a view to receiving appropriate commitment from relevant organisations, for future projects.
AHW
22/16
Consideration was given to the Forward Plan. The following points were noted:

- Carers Update be scheduled to the 23 November 2016 meeting.

- It was possible that the Care Homes Update may not be considered at the meeting on 23 November 2016.

- Delegated Co Commissioning Plans be removed from the forward plan and circulated to Members for information outside of the meeting.

- CCG Commissioning Plans be removed from the 23 November 2016 agenda and be scheduled for an alternative meeting date.

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