Agenda item

Caroline Selkirk (Managing Director, NHS East Kent CCGs), Ailsa Ogilvie (Chief Operating Officer, NHS Thanet CCG), Sarah Vaux (Chief Nurse for the NHS East Kent CCGs) and Matthew Inder (Business Process and Continuous Improvement Manager, Millbrook Healthcare) were in attendance for this item.

(1)      The Chair welcomed the guests to the Committee and informed the Committee that Sophie Fournel, Service Manager, Centre for Independent Living in Kent (CiLK) and representative from Wheelchair Service Users was unable to attend but had submitted a statement.  The Chair read the statement on Ms Fournel’s behalf to the Committee.  The statement was attached as a supplement to the minutes.

(2)      Ms Selkirk said that there had been clear and steady progress within the service recognising that this was still an ongoing difficult situation and as raised by Sophie Fournel.  She referred to ongoing engagement and additional scrutiny conferred upon the service by the CCG.

(3)      Ms Ogilvie said that the level of repairs was reported at 87 at the current time.  She confirmed that the waiting list for assessment and equipment provision, which had grown to a very unacceptable 3369 was at the end of December reported as 2444.  She said that on average 120 new referrals were made every month which impacted on the waiting list.  Ms Ogilvie acknowledged that there a long road to travel to remove the backlog and that in reality individuals will be waiting far too long.  She said that everyone was committed to turning this around with ongoing support from service users.

(4)      Members enquired about waiting lists, staffing and comparisons against similar geographical neighbours.  Ms Ogilvie said that because of the inherited backlog and the higher complexity of cases, a process of splitting out what ‘business as usual’ looked like was something that needed to be achieved.  She said that they were therefore setting a target of an acceptable waiting list.  Ms Ogilvie informed the Committee that the Wheelchair Service was not bound by the 18-week referral to treatment target.  She confirmed that the CCG had been looking at similar services across the country to assess how to achieve sustainable waiting times, some are achieving 20-22-week waiting lists and were working with Millbrook Healthcare on how to progress.

(5)      Mr Inder highlighted that the staffing model was continuing its planned trajectory and that staff retention was being maintained.  He confirmed that there was regular supervision and that staff were adequately supported due to the pressures being experienced by the service.  Ms Selkirk said that staff recruitment, retention and turnover had been good, and that additional clinical staff above the headcount, medical secretary and occupational assistant had been employed.  She added that triaging needed to be good and recruitment of an additional staff member would assist with that.  Ms Selkirk concluded that the CCG through the contractual process were feeling more assured.

(6)      Mr Inett was invited to speak by the Chair and said that Healthwatch had taken a step back after its initial involvement as the users were involved.  He said that Healthwatch still wished to be kept in the loop and involved in the proposed Board being established.  Mr Inett acknowledged that several organisations had been involved in this and that it had been a challenging situation to find suitable venues to ensure they are able to give feedback.  He offered to assist with this.

(7)      Several Members enquired about complaints.  Ms Vaux said from the CCG’s perspective there was a robust process in place for complaints handling and that a quality team was in place to identify themes.  She continued that the information learned showed that from a quality perspective it was more business as usual analysis.

(8)      Ms Selkirk said that identified themes gave assurance on the contracting from independent Clinicians with a view gauged of the levels of happiness of the service and if the need arose escalation would go to the Quality Committee.  She said the voice of users was coming through by way of the emerging themes.

(9)      A Member said that they felt this assurance was not coming through in the report presented and would welcome more information by way of peer comparison information for a future return and more thematic complaints analysis. 

(10)   The Chair endorsed this and said that the reported referred to CCG seeking assurance was worrying.  Ms Vaux confirmed that the process was seeking assurance through further checks being conducted.

(11)   Mr Inett said that it had to be remembered that there was vulnerability and reliance on this service and were less likely to complain.  He emphasised that there needed to be alternative mechanisms than complaints and involvement in Boards and events would hopefully aid that.

(12)   The Chair made reference to a member of the public who had attended and requested to speak.   The Chair said that the Committee although held in public was not a public meeting and suggested that the representatives of the NHS present may be able to speak to them after the conclusion of the item.  She added that the member of the public was also able to email the Committee.

(13)   RESOLVED that the reports be noted, and Thanet CCG provide an update, with additional information as requested by the Committee, at the appropriate time.