Archived decisions

Item 2

AT A MEETING of the HEALTH OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE of the COUNTY COUNCIL held at The Castle, Winchester held at The Castle, Winchester on Tuesday, 25 November 2008.

PRESENT

Chairman:

p Councillor Mrs. A.M. McNair Scott

Vice-Chairman:

p Councillor Mrs. P.A. West

Councillors:

Co-opted Members:

Councillors:

a Mrs. M. Kerley

a R. Love

a P. Luffman

p J. Marsh

Also in attendance: Also in attendance: Councillor Felicity Hindson, MBE, Executive Member for Adult Social Care.

171. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members were mindful that, where they believed that they had a personal or personal prejudicial interest any matter to be considered at the meeting, they should normally, at the time of the debate, declare their interest, and having regard to the circumstances described in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the County Council's Code of Conduct, consider whether to leave the meeting whilst the matter was discussed save for exercising any right to speak in accordance with Paragraph 12 of the Code .

The following members declared a personal interest:

Councillor Mrs. P. Dickens - employed by NHS

Councillor D. Wright - wife a General Practice Manager.

Councillor P. Edgar - does work for the NHS

172. SURREY AND BORDERS PARTNERSHIP NHS TRUST - PROPOSALS

TO PROVIDE 24 HOUR ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT

In responding to the proposals currently out for consultation the Committee had to be satisfied:

· that there had been sufficient engagement and involvement of key stakeholders in developing the proposals

· with the content and conduct of the consultation process

· that the changes proposed were in the interests of the Hampshire population affected

The Committee received presentations from:

Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust

The Trust outlined the proposals which was a major investment programme over the next five years which would allow them to deliver the latest model of care based on national guidance and research. This would focus on creating modern hospitals to assess and treat adults and older adults with metal health problems, learning disabilities and drug and alcohol problems. The new hospitals were being built for the benefit of the local communities the Trust served. They outlined their ambitions and gave details of the planning process that had enabled them to decide on the best locations for the new hospitals which were St. Peter's Hospital, Chertsey; Farnham Road Hospital, Guildford and a new site at Redhill. They gave details of the consultation process that had been carried out which included a number of public meetings during September and October 2008 across Surrey and northeast Hampshire and involvement of the Forum for Carers and Users Group (FOCUS) with consultation ending on 28 November 2008 and the findings presented to the Programme Board for consideration which would then make a recommendation to the Board of Directors.

Hampshire Primary Care Trust

The Primary Care Trust recognised the need to improve facilities and that mental health should be treated in the community as much as possible. They had concerns about the proposals and had been working with Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust to improve services. They recognised the benefits of moving to better facilities but had issues surrounding support for residents in northeast Hampshire, location needed to be balanced against the nature of care and local people needed to be able to understand this. They took the view that the consultation being carried out did not give sufficient information and more in depth information was needed to enable an accurate view on the proposals to be taken. They were of the opinion that the consultation should be extended by at least two months and that part of the consultation should be specifically focused on Hampshire residents, setting out the implications for the changes and taking account of community and other supporting services.

Hampshire Adult Services

Adult Services said that there were two different issues to be considered, changes to the service and the relocation of specialised units. They applauded the general direction of travel but said that the devil was in the detail and they needed to see what the proposals meant for Hampshire residents. They said that further work needed to be done to put all of the information in a format that was understood by all. They thought that a further three months consultation would be needed to achieve this.

Rushmoor Borough Council

The Borough Council had serious concerns regarding the consultation paper which lacked supporting information and did not appear to address local issues. They said that the proposals could have a far reaching impact on mental health services for their residents and, before a decision was made to proceed, the Trust needed to prepare a robust business case which provided the key background information, the benefits and disbenefits of other options and an understanding of how local issues, including out-patient work, would be addressed. The Borough Council also expressed concerns about the difficulties of travel for their residents to the proposed site at Guildford. They had not been involved in the development of the proposals.

Hart District Council

The District Council was concerned about the lack of information and said that insufficient work had been done on the consultation process. They said that the District Council considered the proposal to be appalling in all respects to its likely impact on its residents and had no confidence that the patients under the Mental Health Act would be listened to or provided for; the consultation appeared to totally ignore adolescents and their needs. They were concerned that the proposed changes would result in a reduction in the number of beds being provided as there was no reference to the implication for bed provision in the consultation documents nor was there any information about staffing. They too were concerned about travelling and its costs to the proposed Guildford site. They had not been involved in the development of the proposals.

Surrey Heath and Northeast Hants Mental Health Forum

The Forum said that they had had no real involvement in the consultation process. They took the view that the consultation process was flawed, as there was insufficient detail in the document to justify any decisions made by the Trust and patient and carers from Surrey Heath and Northeast Hampshire had not been involved in preparatory discussions through the established Forum and the Local Improvement Teal (LIT)/stakeholder groups. They were also concerned about the choice of location of the new hospitals and the travel problems that might ensue.

After consideration of all of the evidence it was

RESOLVED:

That the Committee is not satisfied:

o That there has been sufficient engagement and involvement of key stakeholders in developing the proposals

o With the content and conduct of the consultation process

o That the changes proposed is in the interests of the Hampshire population affected

and could not therefore support this proposal as it currently stood. It was however keen to see a local resolution of this matter and was mindful that there did seem to be broad support amongst commissioners for the proposed direction of travel . It was requested that further work be undertaken to address the gaps in information identified by 31 March 2009. This to include:

· Further engagement and involvement with stakeholders, including the districts affected and General Practitioners to build consensus on the way forward.

· A Hampshire specific document, setting out the implications of the changes for Hampshire residents, taking account of community and other supporting services

· Additional information provided to take account of the guidance `Changing for the Better'

· Details of the metal health services commissioned from Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust by Hampshire Adult Services and Hampshire Primary Care Trust and confirmation that both organisations would work with Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust to take this work forward.