Issue - meetings

To consider a report of the Deputy Place Based Lead.

The report provides an update on the differing roles and responsibilities between the Health and Wellbeing Board and the One Stockport Health & Care Board and why both continue to be necessary. The report was requested by the Adult Social Care & Health Scrutiny Committee and is presented to the Health & Wellbeing Board for information.

The Board is recommended to comment on and note the report.

Officer contact: Geraldine Gerrard by email: geraldine.gerrard@stockport.gov.uk

The Deputy Place Lead submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) providing an update on the differing roles and responsibilities between the Health and Wellbeing Board and the One Stockport Health & Care Locality Board and why both continue to be necessary. The report was requested by the Adult Social Care & Health Scrutiny Committee and was presented to the Health & Wellbeing Board for information.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

·         It was noted that the report would also be submitted for consideration by the One Stockport Health & Care Locality Board for completeness.

·         It was commented that a key question from Adult Social Care & Health Scrutiny Committee was about decision making, the new operating model and whether some of the decisions were further away from the population than previous. It was stated that, as set out in the paper, there was a new operating model in Greater Manchester and there were still changes to be made. As seen with the LeDeR Annual Report some activities were at a Greater Manchester level to get an efficiency of scale and to be able to learn across the system, however other decisions were hyperlocal such as the investment in the mental health car which was discussed at length at Scrutiny.

·         The Board noted the benefit of working at scale across Greater Manchester, however commented on the importance of keeping as much as possible at a locality level around the local population.

·         It was commented that Stockport had been successful in utilising the flexibility delegated from the Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board through the One Stockport Health & Care Locality Board.

·         It was noted that the Valuing People Partnership Board and the Learning Disability Partnership Board would have the opportunity to attend the One Stockport Health & Care Locality Board to present their work, challenges and priorities on an annual basis, if they wished to do so.

·         The Board welcomed the report and the clarity that it provided.

·         It was queried how the Board’s effectiveness was assessed and whether there would be an opportunity to hold a joint meeting between the Health and Wellbeing Board and the One Stockport Health & Care Locality Board.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

To consider a report of the of the Director of Health & Improvement & Deputy Place Based Lead.

The report provides an update on the differing roles and responsibilities between the Health and Wellbeing Board and the One Stockport Health & Care Board and why both continue to be necessary.

The Scrutiny Committee is recommended to comment on and note the report.

Officer contact: Geraldine Gerrard by email: geraldine.gerrard@stockport.gov.uk

The Deputy Place Lead submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) providing an update on the differing roles and responsibilities between the Health and Wellbeing Board and the One Stockport Health & Care Locality Board and why both continue to be necessary.

The Cabinet Member for Health & Adult Social Care (Councillor Keith Holloway) attended the meeting to respond to questions from the Scrutiny Committee.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

·         Members thanked the officer for their presentation of the report and for the clarity that it provided.

·         It was noted that, as a Scrutiny Committee, Members were interested in the impact of the changes on the people of Stockport. 

·         It was queried if Stockport were delivering services differently than other areas of Greater Manchester under the new operating model.

·         In response, it was commented that the operating model for Greater Manchester provided the framework for the discharging of functions and therefore the Locality Board in each of the boroughs were charged with the same remit, however how this was implemented at a local level varied. It was noted that membership across Locality Boards differed and within the One Stockport Health & Care Locality Board the membership was wider to incorporate partners across the system, by way of example Greater Manchester Police and Housing, in order to address the wider determinants of health.

·         Members were advised that the feedback received in relation to the Locality Plan was positive and demonstrated to Greater Manchester that the approach was comprehensive, that the relevant partners were involved and that the One Stockport Health & Care Locality Board was considering the wider determinants of health and care in the broadest sense.

·         It was requested that a report detailing the interrelations between the various boards and partnerships be circulated to Members of the Scrutiny Committee via email.

·         It was commented that the default should be Stockport making decisions about Stockport and decisions relating to Stockport should only be taken at a Greater Manchester level if there was good reason such as efficiency.

·         In response, it was commented that in referencing the decisions taken at a Greater Manchester level, there were benefits including value for money driven by an economy of scale and resource management as evidenced through the work in relation to prescribing and medicine optimisation which had increased efficiency and provided standardisation of care. However, commented on the importance of keeping as much as possible at a locality level around the local population.

·         It was noted that the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment included dated information and queried how the assessment was updated.

·         In response, it was stated that there was a programme of updating the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment which was completed in a phased way with a number of topic areas scheduled for this year and agreed that a copy of the programme would be shared with Members of the Scrutiny Committee for their information.

·         Members queried the implication of the financial recovery plan around the Greater Manchester Integrated Care System on Stockport.

·         In response, it was commented that there was a significant financial deficit which had an implication on all boroughs in Greater Manchester. Part of the agenda included exploring across the ten localities what could be done once such as medicine optimisation and prescribing which would drive some efficiency for Greater Manchester as a whole and contribute to the delivery of the financial plan. It was noted that the challenge was around the clarity in relation to the budget for the next financial year from a health perspective. It was further noted that NHS England planning guidance for 2024/25 had not been released, with planning for 2024/25 ongoing, and within that there would be a challenging cost improvement programme.

·         Members commented on the importance of multi-year settlements for local government and the NHS.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.