Agenda item

Update from the Integrated Health and Care Group

A standing item around activity at the Leicester Integrated Health and Care Group.

Minutes:

The Integrated Board Lead Officer gave the Board an update on the Leicester Integrated Health and Care Group. It was noted that:

 

·       A presentation was given providing an update on the work of the group, which had been established to support the Health and Wellbeing Board in delivering its priorities and escalating relevant matters for consideration at Board level.

·       The group had been involved in discussions around key priorities including immunisations, healthy weight, and other public health themes. The previous cycle of work had been reported, and the new delivery plan cycle was about to commence, with any issues being flagged as part of that process.

·       A key area of focus had been city neighbourhoods, where good progress was being made and which appeared as an item on the current agenda. Areas of good practice had been identified across the health and care system, with work underway to promote and share that practice more widely.

·       The Crown King Schools Project had been highlighted as an example of positive partnership working.

·       Ongoing issues remained around accessing the right care at the right place and time, particularly relating to the hospital emergency department.

·       The group had also been made aware of questions regarding the hospital discharge process and immediate care arrangements, including the availability of community hospital beds, physiotherapy and other rehabilitation services. Providers were expected to feed back to the Health and Wellbeing Board on these matters, and the Chair was keen for further exploration of this area.

·       It was noted that the VCSE subgroup had been focusing on developing a set of metrics to measure performance and impact across the system. Work was being undertaken to align data and performance indicators with projects receiving funding through the Better Care Fund to better understand outcomes and impact.

 

It discussion with Members, the following was noted:

 

·       Members thanked officers for the work of the group, noting that it had successfully replaced two previous groups which had often overlapped and duplicated work. It was felt that the new group operated clearly and effectively, handled challenging discussions well, and ensured the right people were involved in the right areas. Members agreed that it provided a strong mechanism for informing and coordinating ongoing work.

·       It was noted that reporting on data had been helpful, particularly in relation to vaccination programmes such as RSV and HPV. While good progress had been made in establishing a consistent citywide approach, concerns were expressed that although performance indicators in the report were positive, vaccination outcomes were not yet at the desired level.

·       Members discussed the group’s links with the prevention and health inequalities workstreams and heard that five key topics had been prioritised, including vaccinations and HPV. These were described as focused pieces of work aimed at addressing complex issues in the same proactive way that previous measles outbreaks had been handled. Acknowledgement was given to the inequalities that remained and the actions being put in place to address them.

·       Reference was made to a case study highlighting the city’s approach to treating health inequalities as an emergency issue, which had been recognised as an example of good practice.

·       Members raised concerns about the amber rating for NHS Health Checks and low engagement levels among GP practices. It was noted that this remained under performance monitoring and that a range of activity was underway, including hypertension case-finding. Examples were given of positive partnership working between GP practices and local pharmacies in East Leicester to increase blood pressure testing, although this work was not supported by additional funding. It was highlighted that the absence of extra resources was a barrier to wider GP participation.

·       Members asked whether there was scope in the future to link this work to enhanced service funding. It was noted that this would fall outside the current programme area but could be explored further, as cardiovascular disease continued to be a leading cause of early mortality in the city and prevention should remain a high priority.

·       Members were informed that performance on NHS Health Checks was improving, supported by a strong technical contract and consistent engagement with GP practices. The health promotion team had also delivered targeted community events, where a high proportion of attendees were identified with raised blood pressure.

·       Members emphasised the importance of aligning funding, neighbourhood working, and prevention programmes to ensure the best use of public resources and maximise impact for residents.

·       The Chair was satisfied with the reporting approach and noted that vaccination uptake remained a key issue for the city, particularly in relation to HPV. It was agreed that a future Board meeting would include a dedicated item on vaccination to consider progress and future priorities.

·       Members raised concerns about misinformation relating to vaccinations and stressed the importance of actively challenging and correcting inaccurate information across communities.

Supporting documents: