16 January 2006Joint Section 7 Consultation Committee

JOINT SECTION 7 CONSULTATION COMMITTEE (ACUTE SERVICES REVIEW)

A meeting of the Joint Section 7 Consultation Committee (Acute Services Review) was held on 16 January 2006.

PRESENT:Representing Durham County Council:

Councillor Crosby

Representing Hartlepool Borough Council:

Councillors Lilley and Sutheran

Representing Middlesbrough Council:

Councillor Dryden (Chair) and Councillor Biswas

Representing North Yorkshire County Council:

County Councillors Blackie, Dadd and Heather

Representing Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council:

Councillors Mrs Franklin, Mrs Walker and Mrs Wall

Representing Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council:

Councillors Coombs, Mrs Robinson and Mrs Womphrey.

**PRESENT BY INVITATION:

County Durham & Tees Valley Strategic Health Authority:

E Criddle (Project Lead NHS Joint Committee)

North Tees & Hartlepool Hospitals NHS Trust:

A Lamb (Deputy Chief Executive Officer/Director of Acute Services)

North Tees PCT:

C Willis (Supporting Officer NHS Joint Committee/Chief Executive Officer of PCT)

Rocket Science:

J Pendleton (Account Director).

** PRESENT AS AN OBSERVER: Councillor Mrs Skilbeck (Hambleton District Council), County Councillor Hall (North Yorkshire County Council), Councillors Frankland and Lupton (Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council).

** OFFICIALS: T Bolton (Durham County Council), J Whistow (Hartlepool Borough Council), J Bennington and J Ord (Middlesbrough Council), B Hunter (North Yorkshire County Council), C Moon (Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council) and G Birtle (Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council).

** APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE were submitted on behalf of County Councillor Taylor-Gooby (Durham County Council) and Councillor Clouth (Hartlepool Borough Council).

DECLARATIONS OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS

Name of MemberType of InterestItem/Nature of Interest

Councillor LilleyPersonal/Non PrejudicialAny matters relating to

(Hartlepool Borough Acute Services Review

Council)(representative on a lobby

group)

Councillor Mrs FranklinPersonal/Non PrejudicialAny matters relating to

(Redcar & Cleveland Borough TNEY NHS Trust (relative of Council) employee)

Councillor Mrs WallPersonal/Non PrejudicialAny matters relating to

(Redcar & Cleveland BoroughTENYAS NHS Ambulance Council). Trust (relative of employee).

** MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Joint Section 7 Consultation Committee (Acute Services Review) held on 5 January 2006 were submitted and approved subject to the substitution of Councillor Mrs O’Donnell for Councillor Mrs Womphrey in the attendance list.

ACUTE SERVICES REVIEW – LOCAL NHS – CONSULTATION

Chris Willis, Supporting Officer of the NHS Joint Committee and Chief Executive Officer of North Tees PCT confirmed that the local NHS had engaged Rocket Science, an independent market research company to give a written account of the consultation and provide an analysis of the feedback received.

It was confirmed that the analysis was still ongoing in view of the impact of the Christmas holiday period; the acceptance of some substantial late responses; and the open nature of the comments/responses received.

It was pointed out that the NHS Joint PCT Committee had considered it inappropriate to provide detailed information at this time as the Joint Section 7 Consultation Committee had yet to respond as a consultee in its own right.

John Pendleton, Account Director, Rocket Science gave a presentation on the methodology of the consultation process and focussed on mechanisms used to raise awareness to the proposals; described the publicity campaign and how the data would be classified and assessed as follows: -

Methods used to Raise Awareness;

radio campaign and press campaign covering the areas, as shown on the plan displayed, including Northern Echo, Evening Gazette, Darlington & Stockton Times, Hartlepool Mail;

dedicated telephone line with Radio Cleveland;

press coverage included the launch and planned meetings which comprised 18 statutory public meetings between October and November 2005 throughout the affected PCT areas;

there had also been 350 stakeholder public meetings since March 2005 and were still ongoing;

leaflet campaign targeted to 377,000 households selected on a post code basis across the area and as many as possible delivered in time for the first public meeting;

leaflets summarised the proposals; detailed the public meetings and invited comments;

leaflets had been delivered by a variety of means comprising:-

between 25 and 29 September 2005, 97% had been received by free newspaper coverage;

shared distribution by post with separate companies to target areas where free newspaper coverage was low;

delivery by separate companies to 80,500 households to target rural areas;

quality assurance checks of 20 telephone calls chosen at random in 33 post codes areas (660 households) had confirmed they had all received the leaflet;

Analysis of Responses:

the bulk of the comments to be analysed was from the statutory meetings although responses from other sources including letters, faxes, e-mails, questionnaires, Patient and Public Involvement Forums, petitions and shared letters would be incorporated in the overall analysis;

with the exception of a questionnaire which had been compiled following a request by the Joint Committee there was no prescribed framework for responses the vast majority of which was open and unprompted which was considered likely to increase the response rate but was more labour intensive in terms of analysis;

in order to make the analysis more meaningful the data had been organised into 3 levels of:

Level 1- Themes, for example service provision;

Level 2 – Sub –Themes, for example maternity;

Level 3 – Individual Comments, for example retention of highly skilled staff;

data could be separated into each PCT area to provide comparable information and highlight contrasting views;

examples were given as to how the data could be separated and colour coded in graphical format;

process had identified 6 key themes relating to:

Service Provision (for example quality of service, clinical issues)

Finance (for example costs of implementation, sources of funding)

Transport (for example access, potential delays, transfer issues)

Process (for example consultation, publicity, leaflet distribution)

Non-Darzi related to general NHS

Other (alternatives);

an example was provided of the outcome of a public meeting held at Stockton in terms of the themes arising and at what level;

examples were also provided of comments by theme, sub theme and source in different PCT areas;

Questionnaire:

as previously indicated following a request from the Joint Committee a questionnaire containing 3 questions with tick boxes had been formulated and used at 17 public meetings;

an indication was given of the responses received (approximately 50%) to the questionnaire which demonstrated that:

50% had indicated that there was a need to change the way services were organised;

75% had indicated that Prof. Darzi’s proposals were not the best way to sustain a high quality service at all four hospitals;

75% indicated that Prof. Darzi should not have discounted other options;

Responses:

most written responses had been received from North Tees PCT with the least from Easington PCT.

During the ensuing discussion the following points were noted: -

a)it was noted that at a recent public meeting held in North Yorkshire half of approximately 75 members of the public who attended had not received a copy of the leaflet;

b)the representative from Rocket Science confirmed that the back checks could be extended to the Dales area and indicated that there was generally a lower response rate in respect of rural areas;

c)the local NHS representatives emphasised that the leaflet was only one method used of raising awareness and reiterated contact made with GP practices, dentists, community networks, BME groups, Partnership groups;

d)an attendance list had been provided at each of the public meetings;

e)comments from the public meetings would not be seen in isolation but incorporated under the themes as outlined;

f)in terms of the previous consultation undertaken in respect of the Acute Services Review the representative from Rocket Science confirmed that the analysis of such information had not been included within its remit or the specific targeting of the voluntary sector;

g)in response to a suggestion that further use of a full questionnaire with tick boxes may have been more appropriate given the complex nature of the proposals the representative from Rocket Science indicated that inviting open comment was considered the best method in this case to avoid any bias in the responses.

Members expressed concern at the lack of information from the local NHS regarding the financial implications of the proposals as previously requested by the Joint Committee. Such information was considered to be important evidence to the review. The local NHS representatives confirmed that although work was ongoing and separate business cases would be formulated there was no detailed report on the financial implications.

AGREED as follows: -

1.That the representatives from the local NHS and Rocket Science be thanked for the information provided which would be incorporated into the final report.

2. That the local NHS be requested to provide information in respect of the financial implications of Prof. Darzi’s proposals.

ACUTE SERVICES REVIEW – CORPORATE POSITIONS OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES

In accordance with the previous decision of the Joint Committee statements on the corporate positions were provided in respect of Middlesbrough Council, Stockton Borough Council, County Durham, Hartlepool Borough Council, North Yorkshire County Council and Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council.

Such contributions would be referred to in the Joint Committee’s final report.

NOTED

ANY OTHER BUSINESS – URGENT ITEM - ACUTE SERVICES REVIEW

The Chair agreed that the following item might be considered as a matter of urgency under the provisions of Section 100B (4b) of the Local Government Act 1972 in view of the time constraints involved in submitting a report to the NHS regarding the Acute Services Review.

The Joint Committee discussed the way forward in terms of considering the evidence received in the light of the Committee’s remit, national guidance and awareness of local issues and subsequently formulating the Final Report in particular, the conclusions and recommendations in the Final Report.

AGREED as follows: -

  1. That Members of the Joint Section 7 Consultation Committee form the Members of a Working Group to consider the draft Final Report as outlined at a meeting to be held on 26 January 2006.

2.That a meeting of the Joint Section 7 Consultation Committee be held on 6 February 2006 to consider and approve the final report.

37705.doc1