Agenda and minutes

Members were asked to note the following:

Dr Feltham C.C, the Vice Chair submitted his apologies. Mrs Richards C.C. was the Vice Chair for the meeting and Mrs Seaton C.C. was Dr Feltham’s substitute.

Mr Harrison C.C. submitted his apologies; Dr Bremner C.C. was his substitute for the meeting.

Mrs Hack C.C. submitted her apologies; Dr Eynon C.C. was her substitute for the meeting.

Apologies were also received from Councillor Chaplin, Councillor Conde and Dr Hill C.C.

The Chair explained that she had agreed that some additional information from Dr Sally Ruane could be circulated to Members, as It contained information which she considered to be significant.

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business on the agenda.

Members were asked to declare any interests they may have in the business on the agenda.

Dr Janet Underwood declared that she was a co-author of a report that had been sent out and she had also sent a critique to Councillors before the previous meeting held 4 September 2018. Dr Underwood added that she was not a campaigner and everything she would say at the meeting would be in her capacity as a member of Healthwatch Rutland.

Dr Eynon C.C. declared that she was a registered medical practitioner. She was not currently in practice and did not work for any of the NHS organisations represented at the meeting.

Dr Bremner C.C. declared that he was a colleague of Dr Sally Ruane at De Montfort University, but in relation to this meeting they had not had any discussion regarding the papers.

Councillor Cutkelvin declared that she had spoken to NHS bosses in respect of their report and Dr Ruane in respect of her paper as circulated. She had not been lobbied by Dr Ruane and they had only spoken about the technicalities of her attending the meeting.

It was agreed that these declarations of interest did not mean that Dr Underwood and Members could not continue with the upcoming debate.

Members will continue their consideration of a report from the University Hospitals of Leicester (UHL) relating to the Consolidation of Level 3 Intensive Care. The report and associated documentation was considered as an item of any other urgent business at a meeting of the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland (LLR) Joint Health Scrutiny Committee on 4 September and due to time factors, Members agreed to reconvene to enable all members of the committee to contribute to the discussion. 

The report and supporting documentation considered at the meeting on 4 September 2018 are attached at Appendix A as follows, along with a draft minute extract from that meeting.

Draft Minute Extract from the meeting of the LLR Joint Health Scrutiny Committee held 4 September 2018 (Appendix A1)

Questions submitted at the meeting of the Leicester City Council Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Commission held 23 August 2018 and the meeting of the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Joint Health Scrutiny Committee held 4 September 2018 (Appendix A2)

The Consolidation of Level 3 Intensive Care – Report from the UHL. (Appendix A3)

Leicestershire County Council

Minute extract of the meeting of the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 22 February 2015 (Appendix A4)

The Future of Intensive Care at UHL. Report submitted to the meeting held 22 February 2015. (Appendix A5)

Leicester City Council

Minute extract of the meeting of the Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Commission held 25 March 2015. (Appendix A6)

The future of Intensive Care at UHL. Report submitted to the meeting held 25 March 2015.(Appendix A7)

Rutland County Council

Minute extract of the meeting of the Adult and Health Scrutiny Panel held 5 April 2018. (Appendix A8)

Presentation to the meeting of the Adult and Health Scrutiny Panel held 5 April 2018. (Appendix A9)

Additional Information

Additional information has been received in respect of this item:

Report on the consolidation of level 3 Intensive Care and Dependent Services

John Adler, Chief Executive of the University Hospitals Leicester (UHL) NHS Trust introduced a report on the Consolidation of Level 3 Intensive Care and Dependent Services. The report, which the Chair had agreed to accept as additional information, had been submitted by the Leicester City, East Leicestershire and Rutland, and West Leicestershire Clinical Commissioning Groups.

Points made during Mr Adler’s presentation included the following:

·      The UHL and the CCGs collectively regretted the position they were in.  This was by accident rather than design; and the situation would inform the way they would like to do things in the future.

·      In 2015, the issue had been brought to both the Leicester and Leicestershire Scrutiny Commissions. Apologies had been given that the issue had not been taken to Scrutiny in Rutland at the time, but that had since been rectified.

·      There had been a significant delay in implementing the plans due to what was in effect a moratorium on capital expenditure. However, in the Spring 2017 budget, approximately £300m was allocated nationally and the UHL received approximately 14% of that national allocation. This was in recognition of the urgency needed to proceed with the plans to move the Level 3 Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and Dependent Services from the Leicester General Hospital (LGH).

·      The award of the funding and the plans were made known and well publicised. There was positive reaction to the news.

·      Since then, considerable work had been undertaken in going through the process to implement the plans. As part of this, the business case had been considered by the CCGs at public Board Meetings.  They were now at the stage for work on the plans to begin before Christmas 2018.

·      Mr Adler acknowledged that there had been concerns about an absence of formal consultation. They had taken legal advice which had stated that it would be inappropriate to carry out a consultation. The advice given was that the consultation should be meaningful, but a consultation at such a very late stage of the process would not be meaningful and would leave the UHL open to accusations of a ‘sham’.  A further issue was that delaying for a consultation could also be very expensive and would have a detrimental effect by introducing a significant delay at this stage on the UHL’s efforts to improve the service. A delay would also have an extremely detrimental effect on the morale of the staff who work in those services and would impact on recruitment and retention.

·      For these reasons, the CCGs and the Trust had concluded that it was necessary to proceed with the scheme.

·      Mr Adler said that they were aware that the CCGs and the Trust were not in a good place regarding public perception of the openness of the NHS in this area. He said that they regretted the position they were in but stressed that it was not by design. As such, the report included details of their commitment to a major engagement exercise on these changes and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

The meeting closed at 3.38 pm.