Coalfields Forum Meeting 19 Oct 2015

MINUTES OF THE 55th COALFIELD FORUM 19/10/2015
KEPIER MEDICAL PRACTICE

ELECTION OF CHAIR:
As Karen had resigned as chair a replacement was sought. Dorothy offered to take on the role, proposed by Kathleen and seconded by Norma. This was agreed by all members present. This meant a vacancy for vice-chair. Mike offered to take on the role and this was supported by all members present.
Malcolm was asked to write to Karen to thank her for her efforts as chair.

MINUTES OF LAST MEETING/MATTERS ARISING:
They were agreed as a true record. There were no matters arising that would not be dealt with in later agenda items.

INTEGRATED TEAMS:
We were pleased to welcome back Penny Davison from SCCG whose role covered the development of community integrated teams.
a) SCCG had successfully applied to implement the Vanguard Programme, one of five models of care for NHS in the future. Finance was attached along with lots of scrutiny.
b) Penny said that Sunderland was already committed to working with the integrated teams approach. £6.4 million was added to SCCG planned expenditure.
c) The focus for the teams was care outside of hospital. Staff involved included district nurses, community matrons, social workers, GP practices, care homes and visiting care workers. The fundamental aim was to be proactive in maintaining care in the community, to work in a much more integrated way rather than simply reacting to health issues. Staff were working to avoid duplication and improve channels of communication.
By March 2016:
• There would be co-location of staff, to include Age UK, community matrons, district nurses and adult social workers. When fitted out one of the five locations would include Houghton UCC.
• The ‘recovery at home’ team would be based at Leechmere alongside the urgent care and intermediate teams.
• 4-500 staff would be on the move and this would bring a change in culture and a period of readjustment.
Challenges:
1. How to work together? Teams have reorganised caseloads around GP practices and groups of practices. Relationships would need to be built.
2. To develop a planned, proactive approach especially for those frail and elderly with more complex care needs.
3. The teams would aim to identify vulnerable patients and generate a multi-disciplinary approach.
Mike asked what would happen if a carer went into hospital? Penny replied that an emergency care plan would be used.
Penny noted that we had yet to have an integrated IT system to enable information sharing. The aim was to have one record per patient.
4. The integrated approach in care homes would be evaluated to measure the difference made by the new approach. This would involve the skill set of the workforce and GPs sharing confidential information with other agencies.
5. Responsibility lay with each organisation’s accountable body. SCCG exec would receive progress reports. CQC had a monitoring role.
6. Investment is recurrent. £1million was being spent on new nurses with the same sum being available to cover extra GP time to visit patients at home and in care homes.
7. Age UK would deliver the patient and public element. Paul noted that Age UK had already visited Hetton New Dawn. He noted that HND was a voluntary organisation and wondered if there would be any financial support.
8. The Health Forum in November would include updates.
This was a transformation in working and Forum members expressed concern about the logistics of keeping a check on what was happening; who was ultimately responsible? Dorothy hoped patient groups would be consulted. Penny would check on this together with Age UK’s role in relation to consultation. An Age UK document was given to members. A new communications officer would be appointed (possible future visitor to the Forum).
Penny was thanked for her input.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT CODE OF PRACTICE:
Members’ comments about the original document had helped to initiate a revision. Members felt that page one gave a much clearer statement of intention.
At an area meeting Mike had asked David Gallagher why a wider consultation of patient groups had not taken place. He replied that some groups didn’t work very well.

EAST GROUP VISIT:
This group works in a different way to the Forum which had always been run by patients. Their SCCG chair had left and this role would not be covered by the new member of staff. Dorothy had kindly visited the group to advise on how they might proceed. Apparently east group had experienced difficulty in getting professionals to visit to provide information. This was certainly not the case in the Coalfield which was viewed as a model of successful working. It was noted that My NHS had replaced the original plan for five locality patient groups.

AOB:
a) A news report of GPs being given bonus payments to cut patent referrals to hospital was discussed. It was felt that this contradicted the notion of patients being given the most appropriate intervention by professionals. Malcolm was asked to seek clarification from Jackie Gillespie as to SCCG’s approach. Also did SCCG respond to requests for information about such preventative intervention?
b) Physiotherapy services had reverted to access via a patient’s GP.
c) Strategy for General Practice. At the last My NHS meeting a five year plan was put forward. What did patients envisage? They wanted easier access, an opportunity for triage (not simply speaking to a receptionist) and if necessary the chance to speak to a practitioner by phone.
d) There were major issues around the concept of an integrated IT system for patient records.
e) Geoff asked about the use of Houghton UCC by Coalfield patients. Were there any stats on patient visits on a practice basis? What costs were incurred by a patient visiting a UCC and a subsequent referral to hospital? Were the centres taking pressure off practices and hospital? Malcolm to ask Aileen for information.

NEXT MEETING: Monday 7th December 6pm at Kepier Medical Centre.

Comments are closed.