Agenda item

(1)       Mr G K Gibbens, Cabinet Member for Public Health, and Mr M Lemon, Policy Manager, Kent Department of Public Health, attended the meeting for this item.

(2)       Mr Gibbens welcomed the opportunity to answer questions from Members.  He  pointed out that reports on Kent Health Watch and/or LINks would be considered by the Corporate Policy Overview Committee and Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee shortly.  He stated that it was important to recognise that the roles of LINks and Kent Health Watch were different. LINks was not a complaints mechanism, it was an opportunity and a means for Groups to form a link and to make representations in relation to healthcare provision in a particular local authority area.  Kent Health Watch was a means by which individuals could be signposted to make complaints in relation to Heath and Social Care.

(3)       Members’ questions covered the following issues:-

LINks and Kent Health Watch

(4)       Mr Gibbens in response to a question from Mr Smyth, reiterated that LINks was not fundamentally a complaints mechanism and that Kent Heath Watch had been established to help people progress through the complex method of making their complaints and was a signposting mechanism.

(5)       In response to a question from Mr Law, Mr Gibbens stated that he would ensure that Kent Heath Watch and LINks appeared on the agendas for both Corporate Policy Overview Committee and Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  He also expressed a willingness to come back to Cabinet Scrutiny after Health Watch had been established.

Social Care and Kent Health Watch

(6)       In answer to a question from Mr Smyth, Mr Gibbens stated that the reason why social care would not come online with Kent Health Watch until 2009, was that they wanted to make sure that the staff in the Contact Centre dealing with these issues fully understood the Health Service. There was already a knowledge of social care within the Contact Centre.  It was important to ensure that these Call Centre contacts were versed in Health Service matters.  Mr Lemon, in addition, pointed out that April 2009 was the latest date that Social Care would be added to Health Watch.  He also mentioned that Kent was likely to be an early adopter for the new streamlined complaints procedure for health and social care proposed under the Making Experiences Count (MEC) initiative.

Health Service Complaints system

(7)       In answer to a question from Mr Hart, Mr Gibbens stated that the evidence across the country was that the Health Service Complaints procedure was complex and not working effectively.  He stated that our health service colleagues were welcoming the introduction of Health Watch as a means to encourage complaints.  He stated that what was being proposed here would be a massive benefit to the people of Kent and would enable them to make complaints and express concerns.  He accepted that the evidence was that people had not been able to easily work their way through the complaints process within the Health Service.

(8)       In response to a question from Mr Truelove, Mr Gibbens stated that one of the reasons for the establishment of Heath Watch was that there was evidence over the past 12 months, that issues raised by the public in relation to healthcare had not really been answered.  Kent Health Watch was there to signpost people so that their concerns could be dealt with.

(9)       In answer to a question from Mr Truelove, Mr Gibbens confirmed that he had spoken to Ms Sutton, who had welcomed an increase in the number of complaints to encourage issues to be brought out in the open.  Kent Health Watch was a means to do this and Ms Sutton was willing to work in partnership with Kent.

(10)     In response to a question from Mr Chell, Mr Lemon replied that, if a complainant had not been satisfied with the response to his complaint, there were appeals procedures that the Health Watch Contact Centre staff could direct them to.  It was the role of Health Watch to direct people to existing procedures and also could signpost advocacy services.

(11)     In response to a question from Dr Eddy, Mr Gibbens stated that, if necessary, KCC could bring concerns to the attention of Chief Executives of PCTs to ensure that there was a satisfactory outcome.

(12)     In answer to a question, Mr Lemon confirmed that there was no suggestion of involving clinical practitioners as there already a robust process for clinical complaints.  Kent Health Watch would signpost that process.

LINks

(13)     In response to a question from Mr Hart, Mr Gibbens emphasised that LINks was a self-governing body, separate from the County Council.  It would be up to the LINk organisation to decide how it would operate. The County Council could influence this but could not stipulate it.

(14)     Mr Gibbens undertook to supply the Committee with the timetable for implementing LINks.

Information from Kent Health Watch

(15)     In response to a question from Mr Chell, Mr Gibbens stated that Contact Centre colleagues would be specifically trained to handle Health Watch calls and the data from these would be analysed.  The information accumulated would be of interest to both the Health Overview Scrutiny Committee and the new LINks.  He confirmed that this was a sign-posting process. If a complainant was not satisfied with the response they had received from the health service, they would then be given advice as to how to take this to the next level.

Level of calls

(16)     In answer to a question from Mr Simmonds, Mr Lemon explained that a best guess had been made about the level of calls for Kent Health Watch.  This was based on the 35,000 contacts that Patient Advice and Liaison Services (PALs) expected to have across the South East Coastal Strategic Health Authority Area and the 4,000 different complaints to the Trusts in Kent.  An unknown factor was how many complaints were received by GPs, pharmacists, opticians, etc.  Based on this, he estimated that there was a potential of 12,000 calls a year.  It was estimated that each call for Health Watch would take approximately 9 minutes and therefore, they would need 7.5 full time equivalents trained up to deal with this service.  The contact centre staffing costs were estimated at £200,000 per annum.  However, there would need to be flexibility as, when a particularly contentious issue arose, more resources may be required.  On top of these costs, expenditure was necessary for the media and publicity costs.

Re-evaluation of Kent Health Watch

(17)     In response to a question from Mr Horne, Mr Gibbens stated that it was intended to re-evaluate Kent Health Watch after 12 months with health care colleagues.  He emphasised that Health Watch was something that would evolve and develop.  It was important to have a model that could be developed and taken forward. 

Gateways and Kent Health Watch

(18)     In response to a question from Mr Koowaree, Mr Gibbens stated that the possibility of incorporating Kent Health Watch in the Gateways could be looked at as the process developed.  However, at the moment it was intended to introduce Kent Health Watch via the established Contact Centre.

(19)     RESOLVED that:-

            (a)       Mr Gibbens and Mr Lemon be thanked for attending the meeting to answer Members’ questions;

            (b)       Mr Gibbens be asked to submit a monitoring report to the December 2008 meeting of this Committee on Kent Health Watch;

            (c)        Further consideration be given to the appropriateness of using the Contact Centre to receive confidential personal information from Health Watch callers;

            (d)       The importance of there being a KCC exit strategy for Kent Health Watch was emphasised; and

            (e)       Consideration should be given to linking Kent Health Watch with other systems such as Gateways.