Agenda and minutes

    The Board stood in silence as a mark of respect for the sad passing of Councillor John Swain.

          The Minutes of the meeting held  10 January 2012 having been printed and circulated were signed as a correct record.

          The Board was advised that no public questions had been received.

The Board was advised that there were no minutes available relating to the Health and Social Care Portfolio which have been considered by the Health & Well Being Board since the last meeting of the Board.

 

The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Communities which provided Members with an update on the Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy.

 

The Board was advised that the Strategy provided the overarching framework within which commissioning plans for the NHS, Social Care, Public Health and other services which the Health and Wellbeing Board (HWBB) had agreed were relevant for development.

 

The Board was further advised that Halton HWBB had set up a Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy group which was led by the Director of Public Health.  This group had held its first meeting in January 2012.  It had agreed the Terms of Reference, membership, a timeline and project plan.  It had also developed a draft outline framework and had started to populate it with information.  This had been presented to the Health Strategy sub group.

 

The key points outlined in the guidance and set out in paragraph 3.6 of the report was noted.

 

It was reported that it was essential that all members of the HWBB, Council Members, Clinical Commissioning Groups, Policy and Performance Boards and members of the public were engaged in setting health priorities.  Priorities, it was highlighted should be based on information from the JSNA with a clear audit trail.

 

In addition, it was reported that agreement on the Health and Well Being Strategy priorities and alignment of a number of CCG priorities against these must be reached by early June 2012 to enable Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCG) to sign off commissioning intentions by the end of June. 

 

Clarity was sought on what consultation had been undertaken with young people aged 19+.  In response, it was reported that there were lots of different  opportunities  for people to engage in the consultation process.   An interactive event had been organised at the Stobart Stadium, Widnes, (date to be determined), the Youth Parliament would be consulted, a website was available and there would be numerous press releases highlighting the consultation activities

 

It was suggested that data on health should include the impact of working and the working environment  as well as lifestyles.  It was highlighted that unemployment and shift patterns could be stressful and this was a contributing factor on an individuals health.

 

RESOLVED: That the report and comments raised be noted.

 

 

The Board received a report and presentation from Kate Fallon, Chief Executive Bridgewater NHS Trust regarding their application to become a Foundation Trust. Mr Harry Holden, Chairman of Bridgewater Community Healthcare NHS Trust was also in attendance at the meeting. The consultation document was appended to the report.

 

The Board was advised that Bridgewater provided healthcare services in Ashton, Leigh and Wigan, Halton and St Helens, Trafford, Warrington and Community Dental Services in all of the above areas plus Bolton, Stockport, Tameside and Glossop and West Cheshire.

 

The Board was further advised that Bridgewater was currently seeking views from patients and the public on its plans for becoming a Foundation Trust. The Foundation Trust would have unique governance arrangements which included members (public, patients and staff) and governors (elected by members or nominated by partner organisations).

 

The presentation:-

 

·       Explained the range of services that the NHS was responsible for and highlighted that it was about people and the population and the services would be delivered locally;

 

·       Outlined the Bridgewater footprint;

 

·       Set out their mission and vision and the challenges that they currently faced in respect of significant social deprivation and the numerous health issues in the Borough such as heart disease, obesity, diabetes and smoking etc;

 

·       Reflected on the changes and challenges in 2006/07 and 2010/11in strengthening care closer to home;

 

·       Looked forward to the changes and challenges in the future 2016/17 and highlighted the reasons for becoming a Foundation Trust;

 

·       Outlined the integrated services around practice populations;

 

·       explained that they were working in partnerships with patients and providers to deliver best value, high quality integrated care, delivering systems savings, providing more care out of hospital, delivering specialist services to vulnerable people and delivering universal services to improve the well-being of populations; and

 

·       highlighted the potential mutual benefits from partnership and the rationale for seeking Foundation status.

 

A booklet, ‘Your community healthcare services, your chance to get involved’ was circulated at the meeting.

 

The following comments arose from the discussion:-

 

·       It was highlighted that Runcorn had been omitted from the consultation document.  In response, an apology was given and the Board were informed that this matter would be rectified;

 

·       The role and structure of the Council of Governors was noted. It was also noted that there would be Public, Staff and Partner-appointed Governors elected;

 

·       It was noted that the NHS were not a profit making organisation and any profits made would be re-invested back into the services;

 

·       It was noted that as a result of the health reforms, private companies would be looking to provide some of the services in the future.  However, it was also noted that there was a likelihood that as they were a business they would want to ‘cherry pick’ services and only deliver services that  would be profitable; and

 

·       Clarity was sought on whether there would be consultation events in Widnes and Runcorn.  In response, it was reported that consultation would take place with Runcorn and Widnes residents.

 

RESOLVED: That

 

(1)              The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

(Note: Councillor M Lloyd Jones declared and Personal Interest in the following item of business due to her husband being a member of Halton Clinical Commissioning Group and a lay advisor to NHS Merseyside and Halton / St Helens Primary Care Trust).

The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Communities which sought to provide information on the work that had been taking place in Cheshire and Merseyside to consider and bring forward proposals for the development of World Class Cancer Services in Cheshire and Merseyside through the establishment of a new Cancer Centre in Liverpool and the further development of services across the area.

 

The Board was advised that the report was requesting Members support for the delivery of a wide-ranging communication and involvement exercise designed to share the proposals with a wide range of stakeholders across Cheshire and Merseyside and further afield where appropriate.

 

Leoni Beavers, MD Liverpool Primary Care Trust and Jackie Robinson, Head of Engagement and Involvement, NHS Merseyside gave a verbal update at the meeting.  It was reported that in autumn 2010, Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) had been engaged by Liverpool PCT to undertake a high level affordability study to review the cost and affordability of building a new comprehensive Cancer Centre co-located with a redeveloped at Royal Liverpool Hospital.  The final report had been published in March 2011.  The study had reviewed two options – a Standalone Cancer Centre and a Cancer Centre with an element of shared services with the RLBUH.  The capital cost of both options (based on 80 inpatient beds) was £116.5m and £105.2m respectively (both excluding VAT).

 

The Board was further advised that both Trust Boards had worked together to consider and bring forward an affordable proposal which incorporated:-

 

·       A new build Clatterbridge Cancer Centre adjacent to the proposed new build Royal Liverpool Hospital (RLH);

 

·       A separate dedicated entrance for the Cancer Centre;

 

·       The majority of cancer inpatient services provided by Clatterbridge Cancer Centre, to be accommodated within the RLH scheme with flexibility within the cancer centre to provide additional, flexible inpatient/day care services;

 

·       Radiotherapy, chemotherapy, dedicated imaging and outpatient services to be provided within the Cancer Centre;

 

·       Appropriate, dedicated patient and staff access links between the Cancer Centre and RLH buildings with required clinical adjacencies conducive to effective and efficient delivery of patient care and clinical trials;

 

·       A dedicated adjacent free car parking facility for cancer patients;

 

 

·       Clinical Trials unit to be provided in collaboration with RLH and the University assuming essential laboratory support of the Cancer Centre;

 

·       Cytotoxic pharmacy to remain on the CCO Wirral site; and

 

·       A satellite facility to remain on the CCO Wirral site comprising ambulatory, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, outpatients services and proton therapy.

 

In making the above recommendations it was recognised that certain patients would have to travel further for certain elements of their care.  However, it was emphasised that radiotherapy and chemotherapy services would continue to be provided on the original Clatterbridge site.  Outpatient chemotherapy services and radiotherapy services for patients with more common cancers such as breast, prostate and lung would also continue to be provided on the site for local patients.  Only those patients who required more complex treatment, or required inpatient facilities, would be required to travel to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Policy and Resources which provided information on the progress in achieving targets contained within the 2011- 2016 Sustainable Community Strategy for Halton

 

The Board was advised that selected measures and targets for Health in Halton’s strategic community priorities were summarised in Appendix 1 to the report, using the Halton Corporate template, designed for the purpose of bringing together all relevant items of performance information. The template also provided a clear evidence based rational for measure selection, which would further evidence and support value for money judgements by the Audit Commission and ensure outward accountability.

 

The Board noted the performance indicators relating to obesity and alcohol related admissions and the steps being taken to address these issues.

 

Clarity was sought on Page 83 – the mortality rates and why the trend line increased for 2011/12.  In response, it was reported that a written response would be circulated to all Members of the Board.

 

        RESOLVED: That the report and comments raised be noted.

 

 

 

The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Policy and Resources regarding the Quarter Monitoring Reports for the third quarter of 2011/12 to December 2011.  The report detailed progress against service objectives / milestones and performance targets and described factors affecting the service for:

 

·       Prevention and Assessment; and

 

·       Commissioning & Complex Care.

 

The Board received and noted a number of questions relating to the performance monitoring reports.  It was reported that the questions and responses would be appended to the minutes.

 

Information was requested on the numerous items with question marks, on whether they had been achieved or not i.e Page 120 5.2 and Page 136 – 4.1, 4.2, 5.1 and 5.2. It was reported that a written response would be circulated to all Members of the Board.

 

Information on the details of the objectives on Page 120 – 4.2 – progress against ‘other; objectives / milestones was requested.  It was reported that this information would be circulated to all Members of the Board.

 

RESOLVED: That the report, questions and comments received be noted.

The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Communities which gave the Members an update on key issues and progression of the agenda for safeguarding ‘vulnerable adults’ (i.e. adults at risk of abuse) in Halton.

 

The Board was advised that the Safeguarding Adults Board’s priorities, structure, reporting arrangements, membership and work plan had been reviewed, taking into account the establishment of the Health and Well-Being Board in shadow form, and the need to look creatively at mechanisms for engaging as partner agencies and individuals at a time of reducing resources and major change.  The revised work plan would demonstrate a greater focus on prevention, aim to strengthen links with Dignity and Domestic Abuse agendas, and examine Safeguarding provision in self-directed support and Personalisation.

 

The Board noted the various activities that had taken place and were set out in paragraphs 3.2 to 3.6 of the report.

 

        The Chairman, Councillor E Cargill informed the Members that Julie Hunt was leaving the Authority and was consequently attend his last meeting of the Board.  She took the opportunity to thank Julie for the support she had given to the Board during her time in Halton.

 

RESOLVED: That

 

(1)              the report and comment raised be noted; and

 

(2)              the Board place on record a vote of thanks to Julie Hunt for the work undertaken by her during her time with the Council an also gave their best wishes to her for the future.

The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Communities which sought Members views on the Draft Sports Strategy.  The report had been referred by the Employment, Learning, Skills and Community Policy and Performance Board.

 

The Board was advised that this year a key objective of the council was to produce a new sports strategy for  Halton. Consultation, which was essential for the success of the strategy, had already began with sports forums and others with an interest in sport.

 

An outline draft copy of the Halton Sports Strategy 2012 -15 was attached at Appendix 1 to the report.

 

The Board was further advised that the strategy took into account Government policy, the Sport England Strategy, National policies from other relevant bodies; relevant regional policies, sports specific policies and local plans, strategies and priorities.

 

It was reported that the strategy identified the following six key themes:-

 

·       Increase Participation and Widening Access;

·       Club Development;

·       Coach Education and Volunteering;

·       Sporting Excellence;

·       Finance and Funding for Sport; and

·       Sports Facilities.

 

It would  be underpinned by the need for Partnership working with local and national key partners and active promotion and publicity to raise the profile of sport.

 

It was also reported that a key outcome was to increase participation in which Halton had made excellent progress. This had been evidenced within the strategy. Many successes, set out in paragraph 3.5 of the report and initiatives of Halton Borough Council had contributed to the rise in performance since 2005.

 

In conclusion, it was reported that the council maximises external funding that was available for Sport.  The ability to secure grants and work with partners, to assist with future delivery, would be essential. In addition, it was reported that investment in School Sport had also significantly reduced since the Government’s withdrawal of funding to the School Sports Partnership. As a consequence of this, provision and policy for School sport was solely within the children and enterprise directorate and  would be reported independently by that Directorate.

 

The following comments arose from the discussion:-

 

·            Clarity was sought on the funding of Runcorn Football Club.  It was reported that this information would be circulated to all Members of the Board.

 

·            Clarity was sought on whether all different types of sports would be developed i.e. cricket and how much funding would be committed to such sports.  In addition, it was highlighted that there was already a lot of facilities for football and rugby.  It was reported that in 2005 the Authority had received lottery funding and funding from the Council in which artificial pitches and training facilities had been established.  There were so many different sports and the Authority was committed to ensuring that everybody has the opportunity to play the sport they wanted;

 

·            The comprehensive school sports programme was noted. In addition, it was also noted that the Government had cut funding for sport and after a very high profile campaign some funding had been re-established for sports in schools.  However, there remained a very large  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

(Note: Councillor M Dennett declared and Personal Interest in the following item of business due being a Halton Housing Trust Board Member).

 

The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Communities which sought Members views on Halton’s Tenancy Strategy as a draft document for further consultation.

 

The Board was advised under the terms of the Localism Act local authorities had to develop a Tenancy Strategy setting out recommendations for the type of tenancies that should be offered in the local area, the length of those tenancies (if fixed term tenancies were proposed) and the circumstances in which they should be offered and renewed. 

 

The Board was further advised that the timescale for local authorities to develop their tenancy strategies was proposed to be within 12 months following enactment of the Localism Act (November 2011).  Consequently, Registered Providers (PRs) were able to start offering the new tenancies seven months before the local authority must develop an approach recommending whether and, if so, how they were used.  For this reason, officers have started to develop a Tenancy Strategy, on the understanding that it may need to be revised as a result of any guidance published following enactment of the Act.

 

It was reported that Officers had met with RPs in September 2011 to discuss their respective positions with regard to the use of fixed term tenancies.  It was clear that RPs were at different stages in terms of developing their own approaches, some more advanced than others, and in some respects were looking to the Council for a steer. 

 

After much discussion, including the role of Affordable Rents and the proposed Welfare Reforms in the equation, it was agreed that RPs would provide examples, together with copies of early drafts of any Board reports on affordable rent and tenancy policies.  The Council would then endeavour to pull together common themes with a view to developing a permissive rather than a prescribing strategy e.g. describing circumstances where it may be appropriate to use flexible tenancies.

 

In addition, it was reported that a Strategy had been drafted which allowed RPs to make use of the new fixed term tenancies should they wish to do so whilst at the same time making it clear that the Council’s preference was to maintain the status quo.  The Strategy, set out in Appendix A to the report, set the parameters for their use.  The minimum term for fixed term tenancies was proposed to be five years (in line with current Government thinking) but RPs could extend this period if they wished.

 

The Board noted the details of the Strategy set out in paragraphs 3.3.3 to 3.3.7 of the report.

 

The following comments arose from the discussion:-

 

·       It was noted that there was a lack of 1 and 2 bedroom properties to rent in the area.  In addition, it was also noted that a lot of the ageing population were currently living in 3 / 4 bedroom properties and were not in a financial position to downsize.  It was highlighted that any housing that was built would have to have affordable rent;

 

·       It was noted that there was no  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Communities which presented the draft Scrutiny Review of Autism report for endorsement and to be subsequently referred to the Executive Board for approval.

 

The Board was advised that the scrutiny review and resulting report attached as Appendix 1 had been commissioned by the Board.  A scrutiny review working group had been established comprising of:-

 

·       Six Members from the Board;

 

·       Principal Policy Officer from the People and Communities Policy team;

 

·       Practice Manager for Autism;

 

·       Principal and Practice Managers from the Positive Behaviour Support Service (PBSS); and

 

·       Operational Director (Complex and Commissioning).

 

The Board was further advised that the review had been conducted in the following ways:-

 

·       Monthly meetings of the scrutiny review topic group;

 

·       Presentations by various key members of staff;

 

·       Provision of information;

 

·       Carer consultation;

 

·       Site visit to Day Services; and

 

·       National Autistic Society speaker.

 

The Board was further advised that it had been a very successful review and sixteen realistic recommendations would be considered by the Executive Board for approval.  In addition, it was reported that Shopmobility in Runcorn was very successful and shopmobility was currently being developed in Widnes which would create more employment opportunities for people with autism.  The source funding for the new batteries for the shopmobility scooters had been secured and they had been purchased.

 

It was reported that the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive had commissioned the National Autistic Society to review adults and young people and this had been completed and the report was imminent.  It was suggested that the National Autism Review be presented to the Executive Board at the same time as the topic review.

 

RESOLVED: That

 

(1)       the report and comments raised be noted; and

 

(2)       the report be presented to the Executive Board for approval at the same time as the National Autistic Review.

 

The Board considered a report of the Strategic Director, Communities which presented details of the Falls Prevention Scrutiny topic, attached as Appendix A to the report.

 

The Board was advised that falls were a leading cause of mortality due to injury amongst older people aged 65 and over. They also contributed to the life expectancy gap between Halton and England. It was reported that people who had been admitted to hospital following a fall were at an increased risk of falling again in the next 12 months, experiencing loss of confidence and fear of falling, and of losing their independence through entering a residential care home.

 

The Board was further advised that nationally the number of people aged over 65 was due to rise by a third by 2025, which was associated with increased incidence of falls of 2% per year. In Halton the number of people aged 85 plus was projected to increase, and this was the most vulnerable group.

 

It was reported that it was good practice to periodically assess the effectiveness of services provided and the report sought approval to carry out a scrutiny review of the Falls Prevention Service and the services provided.

In addition, the report, subject to agreement by the Board to accept the topic brief; sought nominations from members to form a member led scrutiny working group

 

        RESOLVED: That

 

(1)              The report be noted:

 

(2)              The Topic Brief set out in Appendix A to the report be approved; and

 

(3)              The following Members be nominated to form part of the working group:-

 

S Baker;

E Cargill;

Horabin;

J Lowe;

M Lloyd-Jones; and

Zygadllo.