Agenda item

QUESTIONS, REPRESENTATIONS, STATEMENTS OF CASE

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

Minutes:

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

 

The Chair indicated that she had received the following questions submitted at late notice and would take them at her discretion at the meeting:-

 

CARE AND PLACEMENT OF ASPERGER PATIENTS ON BEAUMONT WARD, BRADGATE UNIT

 

The Chair invited Mr Bradly who had asked a question at the last meeting to give an update

 

Mr Bradly stated that the process was still on going and now enveloped in determining the appropriate legal status for his son’s continued care.  He had met with officers and had been put in touch with a number of groups.   He had not yet received a copy of his son’s assessment and care plan. 

 

The Strategic Director of Adult Social Care stated he had met with Mr Bradly and to discuss the Transforming Care agenda and the Autism Strategy Guidance.  Mr Bradly had also met with the lead Commissioner for Mental Health/Learning Services to feed his concerns into the commissioning process and it was hoped that Mr Bradly would also take part in various groups involved.  The Director also stated that discussions had taken place with NHS colleagues involved in this case and discussions were ongoing to address to try and reach a consensus as to who should take responsibility for oversight of individual cases where there were a number of health care partners providing different elements of funding. Discussions were taking place with practitioners groups to clarify a process in these instances.  It was recognised that there were some issues of miscommunication and a number of other minor factors which had contributed to an overall ongoing frustration with Mr Bradly’s experience of the health care system.

 

The Chair was pleased that the issues had been considered by those involved in the treatment of patients with Asperger’s and that Mr Bradly has shone a light on an area where change was required.

 

QUEENS ROAD MEDICAL CENTRE

 

The Chair asked whether Mr Shelley, who had asked questions at the last meeting, had been provided with contact details of those leading the discussion on federations.  Richard Morris, Leicester City CCG, stated that a meeting had been arranged for 5 May 2016 for Mr Shelley to discuss the patients concerns with the 3 clinical leads.   The Chair indicated that she would also be attending.

  

The Chair indicated that she had also received the following questions submitted at late notice and would take them at the meeting.

 

ANCHOR CENTRE

 

Mr Wayne Henderson asked the following questions:-

 

The final statement made by the chair at the meeting on 28th September 2015 stated “Members expressed support for the work of the Centre and felt that the situation should not have been allowed to reach its current state and, whilst they acknowledged the work currently being undertaken to find an alternative location for the Centre, they were dismayed that the current unsatisfactory situation had not been resolved”

 

1.         It is now April 2016, and despite a joint successful bid which secured £267k in February for capital funding for the Anchor Centre/Recovery Hub - we are still no closer to securing or understanding where it will be acceptable to relocate to.

 

2.         Can the council comment on the planning application for the current Anchor centre site on Dover Street? Has the land already been identified for sale or is it still available for the Recovery Hub?

 

The Assistant City Mayor, Public Health, stated that work was currently being undertaken to find suitable premises to meet the needs of the service.  No formal decision had yet been made and the need to use the £267k within 12 months was fully understood.

 

The Assistant City Mayor also stated that he understood the planning application had been submitted by a member of the public and not the Council.  He would look into the issue and report back to a future meeting. 

 

It was noted that Anchor Centre was a standing item on the Commission’s Work Programme and further updates would be received at future meetings.

 

PRIMARY CARE SUMMIT

 

Katy Wheatley had asked for the following questions to be submitted but was unable to attend through illness:-

 

1.         ‘What is the status of the Primary Care Summit which was supposed to be scheduled to happen in April, given that April is now nearly over? Has a date been set yet?'

 

2.         'Patient groups like PPGs and community groups such as Save My GP, which sprang from the Save Queen’s Road Medical Centre, are keen to be involved and members of the Save My GP group met with Rory Palmer and were assured that their group and others would be involved in some way. Could you elaborate on this please, and when they can expect to hear with regard to the summit?’

 

The Assistant City Mayor Public Health stated that the Deputy City Mayor had indicated that he would provide a written answer to Ms Wheatley.

 

 

SUBSTANCE MISUSE SERVICE

 

Mr Mark Gawthorpe expressed concerns that given the level of need in the city, and cost effective evidence for investment, as opposed to increases in long term costs to the city as a consequence of budget cuts (savings), he asked what was the justification for making the reduction in the budget for the service?

 

The Assistant City Mayor Public Health stated that there had been an unprecedented reduction in the public health grant from the government in recent times.  However, the proposed savings to the Substance Misuse Service procurement were mainly through achieving reduced management and back office costs by having a combined Leicester Leicestershire and Rutland contract.