Integrated Lay Partners’ Group
Minutes 09.30amto 12pm, 13 February 2018
Room 5.3 Marylebone Road
Attendees (lay partners) / Attendees (speakers) / Apologies- Trish Longdon (TL), Chair
- Michael Morton (MM)
- Sonia Richardson (SR)
- John Norton (JN)
- Julian Maw (JM)
- Jane Wilmot (JW)
- Christine Vigars (CV)
- Gabriela Francis (GF)
- Michael Morton (MM)
- Olivia Freeman (OF)
- Barbara Benedek (BB)
- Vivien Davidhazy (VD)
- Turkay Mahmoud (TM)
Sarah Bellman
- Welcome and apologies
TL: opened the meeting and welcomed all. Announced apologies, informed all of the packed agenda asking members not to repeat questions.
TL: introduced new member TM inviting him to provide to the group some background information
All provided TM with individual role updates
2. Task & Finish Group: Feedback
CV: introduced the exercise, explaining that together with RJC discussed the purpose members’ feedback? How often would each member feedback on top of other work commitments? The task and group raised more questions than solutions. The next step was to bring back to the group for all to participate, asking three main questions
- What is the purpose of the feedback?
- What sort of feedback?
- Would people be happy to complete the draft template?
This generated a wider discussion about all the different committees and groups that the membersrepresent. There was some awarenessabout what all are involved with but not totally clear.
BB: Not clear and confused about what the type of feedback required
MM: Sits on number of committees, which would I feedback about?
TL: Explained the reason behind the exercise of what are we specifically working on and for the group to further outline the how importance of involvement (citing examples of the ILPG effect)
JM:the feedback should be about what the lay rep said at the meeting, but the lay rep can direct others to agenda the papers and/or the main points.
JW: maybe if we saw the agendas from the other meetings then we could decide which papers to look through
OF: I have no ideawhat about the other committee we all may sit on
TL: not convinced that reading lots of more papers is helpful. To move forward, suggested to try something different – during our first 30 minutes we could set up into two corners with flip-chart paper have started with feedback session and after 15 minutes we swap. In our groups talk about what happened.
GF: this may help to outline the problems
JN: and the achievementsand where feedback has been put to good use
JM: this will informus individually and will be helpful but the next step is how will the feedback be assessed?
TL: suggested that this process may well start to set future agendas
All agreed
Action: flip chart stands in corner first session run by TL in one corner and RJC and DZ in the other
3. Minutes
Few changes to be made
JM: should separate staff members from lay partners. In other words, into a separate box.
JM: asked if there is a problem with log out on online folder?
DZ: explained the log out is now in operation
JM: on page 6,from AoB – please explain what is JD and Outpatients transformation information is not in the online folder.
Action:
RJC will amend the minutes (adding an extra box to separate the staff members and lay partners)
DZ: upload Outpatient transformation information to online folder
4. ILPG Action log
Updates:
Task & finish group (T&FG): Lessons learned
RJC: provide the group updates from Mark Jarvis
The Reimbursement policy
BB: some concerned raised - will send to JW
Working collaboratively in NWL
CV: Healthwatch(HW) not had the response to the questions raised
Geographical mapping
Still open action
NEW ACTIONS:
- RJC to provide MJ’s feedback
- RJC to gain clarification from ER about HW feedback
- JJ to share the mapping with group once completed
All other actions completed
5. Finance (QIPP) – How do we engage with our stakeholders?
The QIPP briefing paper was presented. Overall the group thought that the paper nicely laid the differences and easy to read. This generated a discussion around QIPP and what could be added to the paper.
TL: would it be possible to explain where we are now financially, the savings that need to be made and where we expect to be?
JM: thought that paper did provide that information but it would be interesting to know how the QIPP and the savings from providers. The savings added together are over £300million
TL: whatever way we look at this the QIPP mean cuts, so what is going to be cut and why?
This followed a discussion about the difference between QIPP and cuts.
BB: asked during this period of austerity how are we meant to discuss and explain the narrative?
JM: suggested that the all CCGs have to agree the savings – the aim isn’t to make them break-even it is for financial deficit to be managed – that is the saving – the control total is what we are aiming for from NHSE.
Action: RJC or NF to add to the QIPP briefing
6.Accountable care organisation
RH: provided the group with presentation ‘Towards Accountable Care’ and asked for feedback on what is working or not working. Main thinking behind the integrated approach is about working together as partners. For long term sustainability how do we make change happen? How do we work together across the structures.
We aim to deliver a large system wide event across North West London to present the shared narrative for change on Thursday 24th May 2018. Our ask is:
- Help us with our thinking
- Be part of the change process if you want to make the change happen
- Commitment to our joint agenda of making change happen
- Initiate conversations within your systems and communities
- Carry on the change conversations
TL: thanked RH for the presentation but suggested that this was not what was agreed. We asked from SO a brief delivery, a 2page summary of what was required from us in simple terms. This was not a reflection on RH but not what was required.
TM: if this approach was linked to the Change Academy?
MM: who are you planning to invite to the event in May - different people have different views and without the local authorities and local providers this cannot work.
JM: in your presentation you mentioned ‘our’, who is ‘our’ – ‘our’ means nothing, you have got to say who ‘our’ is to people and do you have a mandate for this change?
OF: this seems like a good case for lessons learned, or not. Have you looked at other areas where has been successfully achieved. Present a draft plan and see if NWL can fit
MM: I have mentioned this many times before but going back 4 years, the work and the template has already been put together called the whole system approach, use it.
JW: have you feedback from all the engagement leads. How are they promoting this?
JN: what does integration actually mean and who with? Shouldn’t Imperial be asked to be the lead on this? How are they involved?
VD: asked whether there has been an examination why the whole system toolkit has not gone ahead?
SR: this different way of thinking we need to examine how structures can get in the way – the providers, CCG and local authorities all defending their part of system. The ask maybe too big
MM: the question is where we going with this? Are talking on behalf of patients? David Freeman should really come to present
BB: what is the term we should be using, it is confusing, first it is Accountable and Integration? Why can’t you stay with one term? Why has it changed? How will the public ever support and understand?
TL: Samira needs to bring something very practical back to the group. We need this soon because May isn’t very far away
Action: RJC to approach SO about the narrative. To explain simply, accessible for patient.
7. Abacus and highlight report
TL: following report any comments send to RJC
8. Working collaboratively in NWL – progress report for feeding in local views
TL: Objectives were very general - not sure what the purpose is? – Why are we working collaboratively? The mitigation action that is what we are doing?
JW: good effort doing things to people and not with people
1)Governance works
2)How engagement works locally
3)How S&T works
4)People who attend collaborative lay members
5)Lay members should be involved in this group
6)No mention of lay members on the group
MM: makes sense that it should be lay partners should be involved
CV: positive development about this process and what is being pulled together. More work needs to be done on the membership and the ToR (Terms of reference). This is about changing something across NWL
TL: it would be ideal if this group should/could comment on how lay members are recruited.
9. PPwT – Planned procedures
JF: Provided the group with presentation
Presentations covered policies difficult decisions, aimed to be clear about where lay reps and patients have been engaged and when:
Overview on lower back pain
Running through all of the areas. Examples of the list of treatments that they recommended ‘do not offer’ are:
- Spinal injections for managing low back pain
- Acupuncture for managing low back pain with or without sciatica and for any other indication.
- Spinal fusion for people with low back pain unless part of a randomised control trial
- Disc replacement for people with low back pain
- MRI imaging in a non-specialist setting for people with low back pain with or without sciatica
- Providers will have to implement new policy by 1st April 2018 – recognition further engagement work required, providers, GP’s and patients to ensure effective implementation.
- what does mean for our local populations
Skin lesions policy doesn’t state where you should have this treatment
London wide: there will be a pan London lower back policy this will require engagement and will come here for the group’s input.
Smoking cessation:the guidance/suggestion is before clinical procedure patients who smoke should be offered a course for smoking cessation, that is thegeneral message from NICE.
Before implementation across NWL JF suggested strong recommendations that we go to consultations
JF: we would need to know what more do we need to do? For lower back policy changed we engaged with clinicians, patient andcarers who had lower back pain and invited patient to clinical workshop
Approached local engagements leads, HealthWatch on implementation policy development group
The group thanked JF for her presentation and invited her back to the next meeting for further updates
Actions: (JF)
-leaflets will be circulated out to groups
-June is to attend next regular meetings for lay Rep input
10. AoB
BB: thanked all for carer information
TL: evening meetings - organise at St. Paul`s Church, Hammersmith
Date and time of next meeting:
13 March 2018, St. Paul`s Church Room TBC, 5:30 to 8pm
1