Integrated Lay Partners’ Group
Minutes 6 to 8pm, 14 November 2017
Room 5.4 Marylebone Road
Attendees / Apologies- Stephen Otter (SO) (Chair)
- Trish Longdon (TL)
- Sonia Richardson
- Carmel Cahill (CCa)
- Jane Wilmot (JW)
- Christine Vigars (CV)
- Varsha Dodhia (VD)
- Gabriela Francis (GF)
- Sarah Bellman (SB)
- JJ (JJ)
- Ben Westmancott (BW)
- Ray Johannsen-Chapman (RJC)
- Welcome and apologies
As above
No finance report
- Minutes
The minutes were all agreed as an accurate record
SO: Request to make alteration to agenda for agenda item 7 to move to number 5.
- Action log
The action log was not part of the pack – actions were assessed from the minutes
The majority of actions were either completed or on the agenda
ACTION: RJCto organise two task and finish groups:
- feedback– how will members feedback into ILPG
- lessons learned – improving engagement
- STP updates abacus
JJ introduced her role and position within the organisation covering
- The abacus
- The S&T highlight report
- The Quarterly report
JJ: Outlined how the abacus showedall of the different schemes across the STP – which provides a monthly snapshot of input throughout the different deliverables whether they are at red, amber and green in RAG rating.
For example, ‘reducing harmful drinking’–the abacus shows a move from amber to red – the highlight report provides more information.
TL: Pointed out that from the report it appears that there are a lot of projects in Ealing and not elsewhere is this NWL wide why not system wide? Why do S&T put all the resources in one area?
JJ: S&T work with all the CCGs so it is down to investment from the particular CCG. What it does show is where the CCG is investing.
JJ: Explained the Quarterly report outlining how this (40 page document) enables much wider reading as a kind of roadmap.
TL: GP patient activation work isn’t moving quickly - why don’t we know any answers to that?
CCa: Patient activation depends who takes it up and which GPs champion it.
JW: surely if we are going to make decisions as an 8 it has to happen as one and really important we get this right?
JJ: The main parts of monthly report providessummariesof the other 40 pages and from thiswe can ask what has really gone well and what is improvement is needed -
JJ: highlighted page5 on the report: key issues joint care transformation what is the particular issue for this month –look at the RAG rating on the abacus this enables staff to drill down and what is the risk? What is the mitigation?
TL: What is doesn’t reflect is the prevention. If you are trying to work out what needs to happen
JW: what decisionsgo to the Joint Committee?
JJ: What we are aim to do next should be addressed in the 3rd document –So if there an issue –the 40 page document should outline how we intend to deal with the issue now –or there maybe justifiable reasons
CV: It appears that much depends on the funding? At work stage do we move forward?
JJ: This is where we need to move forward with the Lay Representatives and aim to ensure that we have representation on all the forums - so there is more of a collective response. I want people to be better informed - to challenge us and keep us on our toes.
JW: that is not enough to have just one or two lay partners on forum and programme boards
SB: Agreed by adding that she doesn’t just the engagement team doing engagement without it going anywhere. We havea new engagement assistant starting very soon who will be able to support Ray and from there we need to formalise the learning into a formatresponse of ‘you said, we did’ - these issues could come to this group?The ILPG should able to see where u can push us better.
ACTION: Update for the next agenda
- Working collaborative
BW: provided an overview of the working collaboratively agenda
- To work as the 8 CCGs more closely together
- Reducing unwarranted variations in other words,less of the postcode lottery
- There will be 1 Accountable officer
- The will be 1 Financial officer
- How do we make decisions together and make the decision only once instead of 8 times
BW: where the lay representation comes in is that CCGs are accountable to the local public and government - so how do we maintain public accountability?
BW: Should the Joint Committee meetings be in public? How do you suggest these to functions operate? How do we make sure they do not getdiluted?How do we weave them into the new arrangements? What is it about the local accountability that you don’t want us to lose? There are likely to be timetabling problems some decisions would have extreme decisions for some CCGs and not for others is there a veto?There are still a number of unanswered questions.
TL:In response to some of the points you stream online ‘The Joint Committee’then it can watchedanywhere with wifi access and people are not then expected to go to MBR. Questions can be asked and answered on the Twitter feed
TL: added that the Joint committee will only look at some issues there will be a range of stuff done that will be retained locally -
CV/CCa: There has to be greater understanding - areas by Joint committee with political interest by certain boroughs - is it with JHOSC or local committees
SB: This will impact on the Local scrutiny committee it will stream internal decision making, but many decisions will till have to go to the all the Local Authorities
VD: Asked what about special measures particularly if commissioning decisions are made beyond the financial envelope?
BW: the financial framework will show the risk arrangement. In other words, what is the requirement of the other CCGs to help the struggling CCG
SO: In terms of the patient voice how is that going be heard when some boroughs are at different starting points? Particularly when there is such a variation of cultural differences
BW: if we get to the joint committee without knowing we have failed
TL: Suggested that JJ’s report perhaps also needs to outline the impacts
SB: suggested that the patient voice isnever even in the one borough.This is where you should challenge us
VD: the services for Brent will always remain very different for services for example in Harrow and this down to demographic differences and affordability
CCa: local services are going to remain local - may have the same supplier but the specifications locally vary.
SR: voiced her concern about being overlooked and waiting to speak for long time – and added why we are looking across the 8 CCGs - look at all the individual contracts - this happens at the acute equality of access - joint approach could have a positive effect postcodes lottery which has to stop
TL: agreed and said the whole thing about consistent standards has to be the driving force
BW: Practically speaking we have to make sure the local voice gets heard - better outcomes and equality of access – can we set minimum standards?
TL: to go back to public accountability - I want your views on accountability? Would it be good enough for the public streaming?
SO: It may not be enough how we going deal with longer more integral questions
VD: I watch the NHSE board meetings which are streamed live is it accessible?
SR: What is the baseline?What are the minimum expectations?
GF: There is a responsibility for local CCGs to make it more widely known that the public are welcomed
JW: If we want people to participate we need to promote better
SB: Agreed by adding that we don’t do that particularly well. We need to do more press releases and send them out to all Partner organisations.We need to be more inventive even though the budget is zero
- Shared folder
SB demonstrated the shared online folder for the ILPG. The folder is still in the developmental phase but by the time of the next meeting it should be close to completion. All papers and documents will be uploaded before future meetings. There will be some papers that are not yet ready for public consumption, so please don’t share the password
CCa: Can we upload papers? They will be sent to Ray or the Engagement Assistant
- Task & Finish Group – Recruitment
The purpose of the task and finish group was look at how we should/could best increase the diverse membership of the group. Connect with patients and voluntary sector organisations to reach and develop relationships with diverse communities, and especially with people whose voices can be harder to hear. The voluntary sector organisations have a wealth of knowledge, networks, resources and practices that we aim to draw on.
The group has initially identified the obvious gaps as:
- Young people
- BME representation
- Carers
- Mental health
Action: The group will feedback to ILPG when new representation are made
- Reimbursement policy
RJC and JW feedback to the group outlining that major parts of the policy need to be re-written
Action: RJC to complete and submit to the next ILPG meeting
AoB:
JW: Could there be a review of the Engagement and Communication Strategy for S&T to fit in with the H&F CCG strategy
SB: there is not an S&T Engagement & Communication Strategy
TL: To write to Clare Parker about the need for ILPG to see finance paper - community needs to understand the financial position
End of meeting
1