Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 28 June 2016.

The Minutes (copies of which had been circulated) of the meeting held on 28 June 2016 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Councillors and officers were invited to declare any interests they had in any of the items on the agenda for the meeting.

The following interests were declared:-

There were no call-ins to consider.

To consider a report of the Deputy Chief Executive.

This item consists of information to support scrutiny committees provide oversight of work of the Safer Stockport Partnership.  It includes a presentation outlining key performance trends, the proposed SSP priorities for 2016/17 and recently agreed changes to governance arrangements for the Partnership. 

The Scrutiny Committee is asked to

·                Consider the proposed themes for the 2016/17 SSP Plan set out in Section 3;

·                Note the proposed governance arrangements for the SSP set out in section 4;

·                Comment on key data trends and information within the presentation.

Officer contact: Steve Skelton, 0161 474 31714, steve.skelton@stockport.gov.uk

A report of the Deputy Chief Executive submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) setting out the proposed changes to governance arrangements for the Safer Stockport Partnership.

The Scrutiny Committee received a presentation from Superintendent Jo Rogerson and Steve Skelton outlining key performance trends in 2015/16 and priorities for 2016/17.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·         Concerns were raised about support for about male victims of domestic abuse and the long term mental health implications for victims. Partners had worked hard to raise the profile of this issue and encourage reporting, although it was acknowledged there was more work to do. The recent recommissioning of domestic abuse support had required a gender neutral service, but this approach was a challenge for many providers given the traditional focus on women.

·         Clarification was sought on the new Police Response Team arrangements, and it was stated that the new approach to having response teams based in neighbourhood police stations would being in September, although this would be January 2017 in the case of Marple due to building works at the Police Station.

·         In relation to figures for children missing from care homes, clarification was sought on whether those with no reports were doing something better. In response it was stated that partners worked with care homes to address these issues, and some of the difference in figures related to the children who may be  considered ‘absent’ rather than ‘missing’. Some of the facilities may also cater for children with severe needs so they were unlikely to have children who could go ‘missing’.

·         It was commented opiate misusers often had more than one vulnerability, such as other drug/alcohol misuse, mental health problems, that could lead to additional risk and vulnerability in the community and agencies had not always been successful at addressing these multiple factors. In response it was stated that the work such as Stockport Family was an example of how working across organisations could provide better support for those with complex needs.

·         Further information was requested about Restorative Justice. In response it was stated that this was approach was well developed and well used in Stockport, working closely with the Magistrate Court to develop an appropriate pathway. The mediation was undertaken by trained volunteers, for a wide range of offences.

·         Concerns were expressed about how well partners were encouraging and providing opportunities for males, and young boys in particular, to report sexual abuse. It was acknowledge that Child Sexual Exploitation could take many forms, and that Operation Phoenix (a partnership between GMP and local councils) provided dedicated resources to address this issue, including outreach work with partners. It was further acknowledged that young people often did not want to talk to Police Officers in the first instance.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted and that Supt. Rogerson and Steve Skelton be thanked for their attendance and presentation.

To consider a report of the Corporate Director for People.

The partner organisations across Stockport (Stockport NHS Foundation Trust, NHS Stockport Clinical Commissioning Group, Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust, Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council and Stockport’s GP federation, Viaduct Health) are working alongside GPs and voluntary organisations to develop a single strategic plan to improve health and social care services across the borough. The Scrutiny Committee is being consulted on the proposed Integrated Service Model and draft business cases that have been developed to move this project forward.

The Scrutiny Committee is invited to comment on the report.

Officer contact: Andrew Webb, 0161 474 3808, Andrew.webb@stockport.gov.uk

Andrew Webb, Corporate Director for People and Senior Responsible Officer for Stockport Together submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) providing the Scrutiny Committee with an opportunity to comment on the Business Case Introduction for the new integrated service model for health and social care, developed through the Stockport Together collaboration between the Council, Stockport Clinical Commissioning Group, Stockport NHS Foundation Trust, Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust and Viaduct Health.

Councillor Tom McGee (Executive Councillor (Health)), Ann Barnes (Chief Executive of Stockport NHS Foundation Trust) and Dr Steve Watkins (Director of Public Health) attended the meeting to answer questions.

Andrew Webb outlined the background to the establishment of the Stockport Together Programme, and provided an overview of the models being developed in the four work streams. Partners in Stockport had also been awarded £19m from the Greater Manchester Transformation Fund to help deliver the new models and while maintaining existing services.

The Council and Clinical Commissioning Group had also entered into new joint commissioning and budget pooling arrangements that would support the development of the integrated service model.

Once agreed, the Business Plans would become the implementation plan for partners and would make them more resilient and allow them to live within their budgets. It would also ensure that people were receiving appropriate services through a ‘single service’, but this would have implications on how the separate organisations operated in the future.

Challenges remained for partners to ensure accountability for their resources and activity, as well as through individual organisation’s monitoring and inspection regimes. The process was seeking to re-write the relationships between providers, and between services and the public.

Councillors asked questions and made comments on the proposals. These included the following:-

·      What affect would the recent announcement of the award of the Transformation Fund have on the business cases? In response it was stated that the continuation of the ‘Vanguard’ process was fundamental to the planning of the models, and would be used to support change management, but most significantly to allow the dual running of new and existing services. Because of this the majority of the resources would be allocated to patient care, but the mechanisms for its use would provide sufficient flexibility to allow partners to respond to changing circumstances as the programme developed.

·      How much reliance did the programme have on the voluntary sector, and how much of that was from non-commissioned services? In response it was acknowledged that the voluntary sector was central to the Healthy Communities work stream, and that this involvement was for the most part through the Targeted Preventative Alliance. It was also commented that there would always be community led, non-commissioned activity within the community in response to perceived need, organised through the good will and altruism of the public. Within the Neighbourhood model there was an expectation that professionals within these areas would also commission services from the voluntary sector to respond to and reflect the particular needs of the community they served.

·      Concerns were expressed that previous reductions in funding to the voluntary and third sector had undermined goodwill. Concerns were also expressed about the capacity of the Targeted Preventative Alliance (TPA) to respond to increasing demand as the programme developed, in particularly whether the training provided to staff was sufficient as there was evidence from mystery shopping conducted by Healthwatch Stockport that the public were being given unhelpful and potentially misleading information when seeking advice. Further concerns were also expressed that Healthwatch was unable to get reliable and timely data from the TPA on the types of enquiries they were receiving, as had been the case with its predecessor organisation, and that a potentially useful and mutually beneficial process for identifying patterns and feedback was being lost. In response, the value of feedback from Healthwatch was acknowledge and a request made for the mystery shopping information to feed into future commissioning decisions and to respond  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

To consider a report of the Executive Councillor (Health)

The attached Portfolio Performance and Resources Report (PPRR) for the Health Portfolio provides an update on key activity during the first quarter of 20117, with a summary of progress in delivering the portfolio priority outcomes through the Council’s investment programmes. It includes forecast performance data (where this is available) and projected financial data for the Portfolio, along with an update on the portfolio savings programme.

Scrutiny Committee is invited to:

·           Consider the first quarter Portfolio Performance and Resource Report; 

·           Review the progress against delivering key projects, priority outcomes, targets and budgets for 2016/17;

·           Highlight key areas of and responsibility for taking forward corrective action to address any performance or resource issues;

·           Highlight any significant issues or changes to be fed back to the Executive alongside the Corporate Performance and Resource Report;

·           Identify how areas of strong performance and good practice can be shared in other services.

Officer contact: Karen Kime, Susan Wood, 0161 474 3574/ 218 1032,

karen.kime@stockport.gov.uk  / susan.wood@stockport.go.uk

The Executive Councillor (Health) submitted a joint report (copies of which had been circulated) detailing the Portfolio Performance and Resources Report for the Health Portfolios, providing an update on key activity during the first quarter of 2017, with a summary of progress in delivering the portfolio priority outcomes through the Council’s investment programmes.  It also included forecast performance data and projected financial data for the Portfolio, along with an update on the portfolio savings programme.

The Director of Public Health was also in attendance at the meeting to respond to councillors’ questions.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·         In relation to falls prevention, it was commented that though there may be differing causes of falls, treatment was the same. It was important to work backwards to address those causes, and think laterally and innovatively, including whether technology could assist.

·         It would be helpful to have more neighbourhood level data, as the headline data could mask variation.

·         Some of the measures in the report were measures of activity rather than quality, and there was too narrow a focus on long term conditions rather than healthy ageing. In response, it was acknowledged that many of the NHS measures focussed on the efficiency of delivery, rather than effectiveness. This would provide a challenge in justifying investment in preventative programmes as there was little demonstrable improvement in these outcome measures in the short term.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

To consider a report of the Executive Councillor (Health)

The Executive at its meeting on 19 July 2016 will be considering its response to this Scrutiny Committee’s Review 'Support for carers of those with Dementia’.

The Scrutiny Committee will be invited to note the response.

Officer contact: Jonathan Vali, 0161 474 3201, jonathan.vali@stockport.gov.uk

The Executive Councillor (Health) submitted the Executive’s response to the recommendations made in the Scrutiny Committee’s Review ‘Support for carers of those with Dementia’ (copies of which had been circulated) that had been agreed on 19 July 2016. The response also included feedback from the Stockport Clinical Commissioning Group that had been incorporated into one response to the Scrutiny Committee.

The Executive Councillor highlighted that the Review had been timely and its recommendations well received by both organisations as the importance of the role carers played was recognised by them.

He also highlighted the creation of a new team within Adult Social Care who provided support to community groups to improve their sustainability. Members welcomed the work being done by this new team and the significant difference made to small groups through assistance with simple but vital issues such as rent for venues.

RESOLVD – That the Executive’s response to the Scrutiny Committee’s Review ‘Support for carers of those with Dementia’ be welcomed.

To consider a report of the Democratic Services Manager.

The report outlines the process agreed by the Scrutiny Co-ordination Committee for the selection of Scrutiny Review topics for 2016/2017.

At the previous meeting the Scrutiny Committee identified the following topics for further consideration:-

·         Community Pharmacy provision – integration and maximisation

·         Reaching ‘Hard to reach’ Groups

·         Veteran and Armed Services health needs

·         Tackling Health Inequalities

·         Employer engagement and workforce health

·         Diabetes

The Scrutiny Committee is invited to select a topic from the shortlist for inclusion in the 2016/17 Scrutiny Work Programme.

Officer Contact: Jonathan Vali, 0161 474 3201 or email: jonathan.vali@stockport.gov.uk

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) inviting the Scrutiny Committee to consider the process for the identification of suitable Scrutiny Review topics and to suggest topics for inclusions within the Scrutiny Work Programme. The report had been considered at the last meeting on 28 June 2016 at which the Scrutiny Committee had made a number of suggestion and requested feedback from officers and partners on the feasibility and timeliness of the topics proposed.

RESOLVED – That the Council Meeting be recommended to include ‘Community Pharmacies’ within the 2016/17 Scrutiny Review Programme.

A representative of the Democratic Services Manager submitted a report (copies of which had been circulated) setting out the planned agenda items for the Scrutiny Committee’s next meeting and any relevant Forward Plan items.

RESOLVED – That the report be noted and the Democratic Services Manager be requested to make arrangements for the following items to be considered at a future meeting:-

·         Autism Service – transition from children’s to adult’s services.

·         Invitation to the Greater Manchester Director of Population Health