Agenda item

13:00

Representatives from the OCCG will attend to outline the plans for consultation and communication with the public on the phase 1 proposals. The Committee will consider the adequacy of the planned consultation events, but not the content of the proposals.

A link to the OCCG’s Transformation website, which contains the Consultation document is below, for information only.

http://www.oxonhealthcaretransformation.nhs.uk/

Please note a special meeting of this Committee has been arranged for 7 March 2017 when formal scrutiny of the Phase 1 proposals will take place. At this meeting the Committee will consider whether the proposals are in the interests of the Health service in Oxfordshire and  local communities.

Christine Ansell, speaking on behalf of Valerie Ingram, expressed concern, on behalf of the 22,000 supporters, that the Committee had voted to accept the split consultation. They considered it unwise, prejudicial and to the detriment of the people of Banbury and the surrounding area. It was their view that the services under review were interdependent. This would risk the potential removal of the obstetric led maternity unit, which would put into jeopardy the Special Care Baby Unit, Paediatrics and ultimately the Accident & Emergency department, effectively dispensing with all the acute services at the hospital. This would leave a rapidly expanding area with an inequality of health care, which in their view would go against council policies in core strategies drawn up by local authorities.

Christine Ansell queried whether maternity services were included within the discussion regarding the temporary closure of beds at the Horton.

She also put forward her view that the first consultation meeting on the plans, which had been held in Banbury, was not supported by any of the attendees. Furthermore it had been held in ‘banquet style’ rather than ‘plenary style’ which was limiting in terms of numbers able to attend, nor did it enable attendees to hear each other’s views. She added that many of the meetings were held during the day which precluded the majority of the working population from attending. It was her view that this style of organisation called into question how meaningful the consultations were.

On behalf of Val Ingram, she urged the Committee to vote against the split consultation ‘which delivered a second class health care service to Banbury’, adding that the County’s MP’s were also of this view.

Clive Hill reported concern within the Chipping Norton community that there had been a ‘complete lack of involvement of the people of Chipping Norton and district.’ He informed the Committee that a request had been made by the Chipping Norton Action Group (CNAG) to the OCCG to hold a public meeting in Chipping Norton before options for Phase 1 of the consultation were determined. Mr Hill stated that despite a promise made by the Chief Executive, this event had not taken place despite repeated requests. Thus, the options had been decided with no public involvement in Chipping Norton. Following publication of Phase 1 of the consultation, the CNAG asked that the Chipping Norton consultation meeting be no earlier than mid to end February to allow time to publicise it. This was not taken into consideration.  A meeting was arranged by the OCCG to take place on 2 February from 2pm – 4pm. This was not acceptable for a number of reasons, namely that it clashed with this meeting, was a weekday, most people were at work and young mothers interested in maternity services would be collecting their children from school. An objection was made, but a change was not forthcoming. There were also concerns about the layout which was ‘cabaret’ style where numbers would be restricted. He expressed his concern regarding OCCG communication in general which had culminated in no advertisement to the community and confusion on the part of the public. The CNAG felt it was a ‘tick box’ process designed to minimise participation; and that the people of Chipping Norton and District had been ignored and side-lined.

David Smith , Dr Joe McManners, Chief Executive and Chair respectively, OCCG  attended. They were accompanied by Julia Stackhouse, Communications & Engagement Manager, OCCG. Dr McManners and Mr Smith made a request that questions from members of the Committee be sent to the OCCG prior to the 7 March meeting itself, so that they could be certain that the correct people attended to respond to questions. David Smith encouraged the public to participate in the communication activities on the OCCG’s website, such as the survey and twitter feed, and not to limit activity to the public meetings.

Questions from the Committee covered the following areas:

·         The difficulty associated with asking all the necessary questions if there was no co-ordination with the Sustainability & Transformation Plan (STP) or neighbouring areas. Would there be engagement with Phase 2 services on 7 March where there were links?

·         Part of the rationale of care closer to home implied the use of Social Care/Neighbourhood Hubs and step down provision in community hospitals. How could the Committee make a decision on Phase 1 without knowing the proposals for that?

·         The lack of reference to the Ambulance Service in the consultation documents;

·         When there would be a further consultation date for the Thame area?

·         The Rose Hill consultation venue was the only Oxford City one and thus travel for some people living in the City could be difficult;

Responses received to the above questions were as follows:

·         A certain amount of flexibility was required on Phase 1 of the proposals, there being a need to ensure that the OCCG was engaging with colleagues across the board and HOSCs across the borders to give awareness of the impact on their residents. The OCCG had written to 80k households in the South Warwickshire, Gloucestershire and South Northamptonshire areas as part of the consultation. There had also been linkage with voluntary sectors across the borders and communications groups. HOSC had a clear expectation that there would be consultation on a number of proposals; this was part of the reason for splitting the consultation into two parts. The CCG was in the process of developing the proposals for Phase 2, for example, those for community hospitals. The intention was not to launch the Phase 2 consultation until the Autumn, but feedback in Phase 1 would be taken into the Phase 2 consultation;

·         The OCCG would need to look at the system as a whole, including nursing care, community hospital beds, Social Care, GP provision etc

·         The OCCG was engaging with the Ambulance Service in the same manner as with other organisations;

·         The Thame consultation meeting was on Tuesday 14 March 2017;

·         Rose Hill was an accessible venue and, as it was an area of deprivation, it allowed a different audience to engage with the consultation. The consultation as a whole was about a series of different events and a person could attend any of them. With reference to comments made by some of the speakers regarding layout, it was important for the OCCG to hear about what people said at the venues and a variety of layouts was employed in order to give the public the opportunity to raise their voice. Some were plenary, some round table etc. Any feedback from the public in relation to access problems at consultation meetings would be addressed.

The Committee urged the OCCG that, whatever was implemented as a result of Phase 1, it was sufficiently robust and rooted in reality so that a case could be made for easy integration into Phase 2 proposals. Mr Smith responded that specific services would be included as part of the investment in primary care services. Part of the proposal would be to move diagnosis into more local settings in order to provide services closer to home.

The Chairman thanked Mr Smith, Dr McManners and Julia Stackhouse for their attendance. She thanked them for the wide scope in terms of methods of communication and requested that the Oxford venues be looked into.