Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Chaplin and Unsworth due to ill health.  The Chair wished them a speedy recovery.

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

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

Councillor Cassidy declared an Other Disclosable Interest in Minute No 31 as a trustee of Carlton Hayes Mental Health Trust.

Councillor Dempster declared an Other Disclosable Interest in Minute No 34 as a recipient of paracetamol tablets on prescription.

In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct the interests were not considered so significant that it was likely to prejudice Councillor Cassidy or Councillor Dempster’s judgement of the public interest.  Councillor Cassidy and Councillor Dempster were not therefore required to withdraw from the meeting during consideration and discussion on the item.

The minutes of the meeting held on 30 June 2016 have been circulated and the Commission will be asked to confirm them as a correct record.

The minutes can be found on the Council’s website at the following link:-

http://www.cabinet.leicester.gov.uk:8071/ieListMeetings.aspx?CId=737&Year=0

RESOLVED:

that the minutes of the meeting held on 30 June 2016 be approved as a correct record.

The Chair to update Members on actions from previous meetings.

The Chair provided an update on actions considered at previous meetings as follows:-

a)         Minute 20  - CQC Inspection of Emergency Department at the Leicester Royal Infirmary

UHL would submit an update on the Care Quality Commission report on the issues identified by CQC to the January meeting. This was requested at the last meeting. 

b)         Minute 21  - Sustainability and Transformation Plan

The CCG had been asked to submit a report to this meeting outlining the costs of producing the Better Care Together and Sustainability and Transformation Plan and providing examples on how the BCT and STP have and will improve health outcomes for people living in the city. 

There were currently some issues at both national and regional level relating to the development of the STP and until that was available it would not be possible to have an assessment of either the costs or the benefits.  This would be kept as a standing item on the Work Programme until the information requested could be produced.

The Deputy City Mayor commented that discussions were currently taking place on governance arrangements for both BCT and STP and he had indicated the Commission had a role which should be clearly reflected in the governance arrangements.  He had also indicated that any changes to those arrangements should be agreed by both the Commission and the Health and Wellbeing Board.  

c)         Minute 22 - Medicines and Self Care

An update from the CCG would be received later in the meeting.

d)         Minute 23 - Anchor Recovery Hub

The decision on a preferred location for the Anchor Recovery Hub in Abbey Street was made by the Deputy City Mayor in July. 

The Deputy City Mayor reported that NCP Car Parks had vetoed the grant of the lease at a senior level for this purpose in the last few days, despite having previously agreed the Heads of Terms for the lease.  This was extremely disappointing and the search for suitable premises would begin again.  The Council was required to spend the grant funding it had received for this project by the end of the financial year, otherwise it would be lost.  The Deputy City Mayor indicated that it was too early after NCP’s decision to say what the options going forward could be.

Following a Member’s question, the Deputy City Mayor confirmed that the Council had incurred expenditure on survey and design fees for the project. Both the Council and Inclusion Health were extremely disappointed and concerned at the late change of mind by NCP Car Parks which could put the project in jeopardy. 

The Chair expressed the Commission’s support for the Deputy City Mayor in securing a satisfactory solution to provide an essential service to this vulnerable client group.  It was felt that the matter should be drawn to the attention of the City’s MPs for support.           

e)         Minute 24 Leicestershire Partnership Trust NHS Trust – Scrutiny Review

The Scrutiny Policy Officer would shortly be issuing the report to all those taking part  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

The Monitoring Officer to report on the receipt of any petitions submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedures.

The Monitoring Officer reported that no petitions had been submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedures.

The Monitoring Officer to report on the receipt of any questions, representations and statements of case submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedures.

The Monitoring Officer reported that no questions, representations and statements of case had been submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedures.

Further to the discussion at the last meeting, the Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group to provide an update on the outcomes of the consultation which ended on 31 July 2016.  The responses from patients and the public are still being collated and analysed as there were several hundred responses, many of which were extremely detailed.  A verbal update will be given at the meeting.

Further to the discussion at the last meeting, Richard Morris Director of Corporate Affairs, Leicester City Clinical Commissioning Group provided an update on the outcomes of the consultation which ended on 31 July 2016. 

The responses from patients and the public were still being collated and analysed; as there were several hundred responses, many of which were extremely detailed.  The initial headlines from the responses were that:-

a)         There was overwhelming support for paracetamol not being prescribed for self-limiting illnesses such as viral infections (colds and flu etc) as the same strength tablets were available over the counter.  There were some comments relating to the quantity of tablets that could be purchased over the counter.

b)         There was more opposition to a blanket ban on prescribing gluten free products, but there was support for offering a limited number of units and range of products at the lower end cost of some products.  For example gluten free bread could vary in cost from £1.20p to £8.70p per loaf.

c)         When all the responses had been analysed, a formal report would be submitted to all three CCGs in the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland areas within the next 2 months detailing the feedback from the engagement exercise.  The report would indicate whether any or none of the current proposals should be formally put forward for consideration by the CCGs.  If the CCGs considered that any proposal put forward should be accepted, it would then be the subject of a formal public consultation exercise.

In response to Members’ questions it was stated that:-

a)         The pre-engagement exercise was targeted and focused upon users and the views of pharmacists were not known at present.

b)         Without prejudging what, if any, recommendation would be made to the CCG Boards; it was recognised that any consultation should include proposals to protect vulnerable people who may be required to purchase items over the counter.

c)         Anyone wishing to comment upon the proposals or any subsequent consultations could submit their views to the Head of Medicines or the Director of Corporate Affairs at the Leicester City CCG.

d)         Other products mentioned in the original report to the Commission had been removed from the pre-engagement exercise.  If any of these products were to be suggested in future, they would have to go through the same pre-engagement exercise, reporting to the CCGs and public consultation processes should they be taken forward by the CCGs.

e)         The pre-engagement exercise had been undertaken in-house and had involved Healthwatch.  The 200 responses received for the City were considered to be a representative sample for such an exercise.

The Chair thanked the Director of Corporate Affairs for the update but still felt that the exercise would be unnecessary if GPs were encouraged to be more rigorous and sensible in not prescribing paracetamol for self-limiting viral infections.

AGREED:

That the update report be received and a further report be submitted to the Commission on the outcome of the CCG Boards’ consideration of the formal report on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

To receive a briefing paper on the work of the Oral Health Promotion Partnership Board (OHPPB), established by the Council in September 2013, to facilitate and coordinate responsibilities and activities for improving oral health.

Members received a briefing paper on the work of the Oral Health Promotion Partnership Board (OHPPB), established by the Council in September 2013, to facilitate and coordinate responsibilities and activities for improving oral health.

The Chair welcomed the achievements made in improving oral health in the City and congratulated the work of the Public Health Team led by Jasmine Murphy, Consultant in Public Health on this initiative.

During consideration of the briefing report the following comments were made:-

a)         The 8% increase in the number of 5 year olds being decay free within 3 years of the initiative being launched was an extremely significant increase of performance in the time period. Normally increases of this magnitude would be expected to take at least a decade to achieve.

b)         Using infomercials in local cinema and on local radio stations to reach the target audience was highly commended by Members as being a highly effective and relatively low cost initiative in the campaign.

c)         It was felt that Government advertising campaigns aimed at levels of sugar in food and drinks, similar to that used for smoking cessation, would also have a dramatic impact upon improving oral health.

d)         Including toothbrushes and toothpaste in food bank packs was also commended as an initiative.

The Director of Public Health commented that a key factor in the success of initiative had been the funding support received from NHS England and Public Health England to promote the project.

The Chair stated that the lessons learnt from this project in achieving high levels of success in a relatively short timeframe should be applied to other projects in the future.

AGREED:

1)         That the work of the Public Health Team led by Jasmine Murphy, Consultant in Public Health, be congratulated on the achievements for this initiative.

2)         That the Commission receive 6 monthly verbal updates on the performance data to assure the Commission that the initiative has adequate resources to keep achieving improvements.

To receive the updated Scoping Document for this review which was approved last year but delayed by the Commission’s Review on the Primary Care Workforce Review.  Members are asked to endorse the decision to conduct this review on the revised timescales.

Members received the updated Scoping Document for this review which was approved last year but delayed by the Commission’s Review on the Primary Care Workforce Review. 

The Chair stated that in view of the other pressures on the Commission’s time in relation to the review of Children’s Heart Surgery at Glenfield Hospital and STP ect.; this review would not be taken forward at this time.

AGREED:

That the review not be taken forward at this time.

The Scrutiny Policy Officer submits a document that outlines the Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Commission’s Work Programme for 2014/15.  The Commission is asked to consider the Programme and make comments and/or amendments as it considers necessary.

The Scrutiny Support Officer submitted a document that outlined the Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Commission’s Work Programme for 2016/17.

In response to Councillor Cleaver’s suggestion that ‘how to communicate with people with dementia’ could be added to the Work Programme, the Chair indicate that she would discuss this further with Councillor Cleaver.     

Councillor Sangster referred to the CQC Inspection Report on Maternity Services in the City and asked that this be added to the Work Programme; as the CCQ had raised a number of concerns in their Inspection Report in March 2014.  It was noted that the proposals to address these issues were contained with the BCT proposals.  The Chair stated that she would ask for an update report from UHL on the improvements that had been made since the CQC Inspection in March 2014.

AGREED:

That the Work Programme be noted subject to the addition of the CQC inspection Report on Maternity Services.  

The Chair declared the meeting closed at 6.57 pm.