Agenda and draft minutes
Venue: Room MP702, 7th Floor, Town Hall, Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London E14 2BG
Contact: Tahir Alam 0207 364 5064 Email: tahir.alam@towerhamlets.gov.uk
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Welcome and Introductions Minutes: The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting and advised of a change in the order of agenda items: item 8 London Cancer Project Update would now be taken as item 6.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Apologies for Absence and Notice of Any Substitutions Minutes:
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor David Edgar and Common Councilman Wendy Mead. Apologies were also received from Dr Penny Bevan (Director of Public Health Hackney) and Sue Milner (Director of Public Health Newham).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Declarations of interest Minutes: Councillor Ben Hayhurst declared a non-pecuniary interest in the London Cancer Project Update by virtue of knowing Nick Kennell (NHS England), and Councillor Winston Vaughan declared a non-pecuniary interest in the same item by virtue of being a member of the Association for Prostate Awareness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minutes of the Previous Meeting PDF 77 KB Minutes: The Committee gave consideration to the minutes of the meeting held on 20 November 2013.
RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 20 November 2013 be agreed as a correct record.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Actions and Matters Arising from the Previous Meeting Minutes: There were no matters arising.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
London Cancer Project Update PDF 40 KB Additional documents: Minutes:
6.1 The Chairman welcomed Nick Kennell from NHS England to the meeting, who gave a short presentation on the project to create integrated Cancer and Cardiovascular systems to provide local and specialist care.
6.2 Members were advised of the level of engagement to date and noted that a report on phase one engagement and an options appraisal report would be available later this month. The London Clinical Senate was undertaking an independent clinical assurance of the proposals, the outcome of which would inform commissioners’ preferred recommendations. These would in turn be outlined in the initial business case to be published by early April.
6.3 With regards to the Major Trauma Centre, Mr Kennell outlined the key issues which had been identified from the clinically-led workshop held on 16th January, and reported that a programme of work was being arranged to address these and mitigate risks.
6.4 Phase two of the project, a series of engagement events and information, would follow the publication of the initial business case in April, after which planning for implementation and development of commissioner assurance, oversight frameworks and a decision-making business case could begin.
6.5 Councillor Ben Hayhurst opened the questioning by asking whether NHS England could guarantee Cancer and Cardiovascular funding would not be reduced as a result of the consolidation of specialist centres?
6.6 Mr Kennell responded that NHS England were unable to guarantee funding levels wouldn’t be affected as the cost of delivering services would change, but assured Members that the project was driven by clinical advantages not financial reasons.
6.7 Councillor Terrance Paul queried when local residents would start to see the positive impact of consolidating services.
6.8 Mr Kennell replied that the figure of 1800 lives being saved as a result of the changes was the potential figure; the next stage was to prepare a schedule of how the changes would be implemented. Councillor Paul followed up on this response, stating that Members wanted to know outcomes in terms of health, not the processes involved, and asked for a future presentation to address this.
6.9 With regard to two cancer site being turned into one, Dhruv Patel asked whether proton beam therapy would be available at the UCL Cancer Institute.
6.10 Mr Kennell advised that proton beam therapy was not part of the clinical appraisal as it was not core to service delivery and treatment.
6.11 In response to a follow up question from the Chairman regarding NICE guidance (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence), Mr Kennell reported that the guidance regarding prostate cancer was currently being revised, and that part of the London Clinical Senate review was to assess the impact of that change.
6.12 Councillor Ann Munn asked when a report concerning Phase two of the project would come back to the INEL JHOSC, considering the Elections taking place in May.
6.13 Mr Kennell confirmed that final decision making was anticipated for summer 2014, and Members agreed that a future presentation would be scheduled closer to the ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Moorfields Eye Hospital PDF 61 KB Additional documents: Minutes: 7.1 The Chair welcomed Project Manager Elizabeth Smith and Chief Executive John Pelly from the Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.
7.2 Mr Pelly advised Members that the document circulated with the agenda set out the reasons for the move and why the Kings Cross area had been chosen, as well as the engagement document used in a consultation exercise that concluded on 14th February.
7.3 Ms Smith reported that this initial consultation had lasted 12 weeks and had liaised with patients and Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) via a questionnaire, drop-in sessions, open days and online communication and social media. She added that of the 59 responses received 87% were positive about the move.
7.4 Councillor Luke Akehurst opened the questioning, asking whether Moorfields were considering changing their name?
7.5 Mr Pelly responded that a new name was being considered to reflect the integrated clinical and research institute with UCL, but that “Moorfields” would still feature.
7.6 Councillor Terrance Paul asked for more details concerning borrowings and funding for the new site.
7.7 Mr Pelly replied that exact figures were unavailable as they would depend on the final choice of site (i.e. whether it was lease or freehold) but they were currently estimating that the project would cost in the region of £300million; £75million to be raised through charitable sources, £50-100million from UCL, £30million from Moorfields, and £60million borrowed from government sources.
7.8 Councillor Ben Hayhurst queried where the majority of patients came from?
7.9 Mr Pelly confirmed that referral figures for Newham, City & Hackney and Tower Hamlets had been circulated with the papers, and that the majority of patients were from neighbouring boroughs.
7.10 The Moorfields site on City Road saw 30% of the ophthalmology work in Central London as generally complex issues couldn’t be treated at satellite sites. He reported that some presence would be retained at the City Road site, though exactly what was undecided, and that, after the move, Moorfields were looking to expand further in the East of London with regards to outpatient and surgical services.
7.11 The Chairman asked for more details concerning the provision of parking at the new Kings Cross site.
7.12 Mr Perry advised Members that the specific site was yet to be determined, though it was unlikely that a great deal of car parking capacity would be created. Instead transport links from Kings Cross St Pancras station would be facilitated (i.e. a shuttle bus) as well as car drop-off points.
7.13 Councillor Terrance Paul enquired as to the footprint of the Moorfields site.
7.14 Mr Pelly advised that the £300million estimate was just for City Road, which would be moving to a smaller site in Kings Cross. As such, satellite sites were also being invested in to ensure they could accommodate a greater number of patients once the move had occurred.
7.15 In a follow up question, Councillor Paul queried whether this had been included in the initial consultation document, as the existing quality of satellite ... view the full minutes text for item 7. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Care Quality Commission Report into Barts Health NHS Trust PDF 40 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: 7.1 The Chairman welcomed Seaton Giles from the Care Quality Commission (CQC), and Mark Graver, Kay Riley, Clare Dollery and Pauline Farrell from Barts Health NHS Trust
7.2 Mr Giles gave a short presentation on the inspection of Barts Health NHS Trust. He advised Members that since the appointment of Professor Sir Mike Richards as Chief Inspector of Hospitals new methodology for inspections had been adopted. All hospitals in the UK had been assessed against a number of key indicators which revealed Barts Health to be high risk. It was noted that as this was the first large inspection with the new methodology, no final rating had been given. These would be applied from inspections starting in April 2015.
7.3 The inspection asked five questions around eight key areas and an extensive consultation fed into the inspection plan. A large team undertook announced and unannounced visits, and was compiled from a broad range of people to ensure depth and breadth of information. Listening events were held for each named site and Quality Summits were held to discuss how to move forward.
7.4 Mr Giles briefly summarised three sites where areas for improvements had been found: Newham Hospital, Royal London and Whipps Cross. As well as areas for action, Mr Giles also highlighted the examples of good or outstanding practice for each.
7.5 Overall, Members noted that Barts Health provided very good services but there were issues that needed to be addressed. Mr Giles reported that it was early days for a combined Trust and the CQC recognised the scale of the challenges associated with reconciling different cultures and the additional financial pressure. He reported that there was a clear strategy and cohesive leadership, but also a lack of connection between the Executive Board and frontline staff.
7.6 Mr Giles advised Members that the Trust were now implementing the action plan, with Clinical Commissioning Groups and Trust Development Authority (TDA) monitoring ongoing performance. The CQC would maintain and ongoing dialogue with the Trust, and there would also be follow up inspections in due course.
7.7 Chief Nurse at Barts Health was invited by the Chairman to respond. She replied that the Trust had welcomed the inspection, and that the robust and well-informed results had been beneficial. The outcome had been balanced and all of the issues raised were already known in some way to the Trust. There had been positive areas of work identified on every site, which had been a boost for staff morale and drew focus for further improvements.
7.8 Councillor Ben Hayhurst asked for the CQC to include a contents page for future reports of this size.
7.9 Councillor Hayhurst asked for more detail concerning unannounced inspections, and queried how serious the problem was?
7.10 Mr Giles responded that the Trust was informed in advance of the inspection as some of the data collection was carried out prior to the inspection itself, but that unannounced visits were less structured. The Trust were not informed of where exactly the ... view the full minutes text for item 8. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AOB Minutes:
9.1 There was no other business.
As this was the last meeting of the INEL JHOSC in its current format, the Chairman thanked Members for their contribution.
|