This is a default template, your custom branding appears to be missing.
The custom branding should be at https://www.kent.gov.uk/_designs/moderngov/template if you cannot load this page please contact your IT.

Technical Error: Error: The request was aborted: Could not create SSL/TLS secure channel.

  • Agenda item
  • Agenda item

    Single Pathology Service for Kent & Medway

    Minutes:

    Miles Scott (Chief Executive, Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust), and Tess Jarrett (Executive Assistant to the Chief Executive, MTW NHS Trust) were in attendance for this item.

     

    (1)          Mr Scott explained that he was attending as Chair of the Pathology Board. It was explained that the changes would bring pathology together into one service and one contract. The three labs at William Harvey, Darent Valley and Maidstone Hospitals would remain and would be the hubs. Spoke services would be provided in other hospitals. This would enable improved training and productivity and lead to the faster adoption of new technology across the county. The main parts of the service were the Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) and the Managed Equipment Service (MES) and there would be common operating standards across the service.

     

    (2)          It was further explained that approval would need to be given by the Boards of the four NHS Trusts involved. It was hoped a business case on equipment would go to the Boards in October and one for the operating standards in November.

     

    (3)          The bulk of the work came from GPs and they, and patients, were not expected to notice any difference, except for a faster turnaround in results as demand was managed across the network.

     

    (4)          From considerations around resilience, the option of a single hub had been ruled out but an open question for the future would be whether to reduce from 3 hubs to 2. The main driver here would be around ensuring the sustainability of the service. In addition, the intention was to repatriate work to the county that was currently sent to London.

     

    (5)          The question of workforce and staff engagement was raised. NHS representatives explained that as the hubs were remaining in their current locations, there was not expected to be the requirement to ask staff to relocate. However, staff may choose to do so temporarily or permanently as more career development and training opportunities became available. It was hoped the changes would contribute to staff retention.  There were dedicated staff engagement forums and the working groups established all had staff representatives.

     

    (6)          As an example of the contribution of pathology to wider the wider health services, the Committee was informed that there was a thank you event that day at Maidstone Hospital to recognise the improvement in meeting cancer targets. Cellular pathology services were a key part of this. A lot of this work was being done by non-medical scientists doing some of the work that medical pathologists did. The first consultant scientist in pathology to be appointed in England had been appointed in Kent. Initiatives like this were making a huge difference as the incidences of cancer were rising but referrals were rising faster. This would also provide a career path into the NHS for locally trained scientists, retaining these skilled workers.

     

    (7)          An attendee from the Local Medical Committee asked about the connectivity between pathology services and GP practices, which use a variety of information systems. The response was given that there would be no need for any GP practice to change their systems as all would be able to link in with it.

     

    (8)          In response to a Member question it was explained that it was a coincidence that the three hubs were in the same location as the proposed hyper acute stroke units. Moving any of the hubs had a large capital implication due to the cost of the equipment.

     

    (9)          Karen Constantine, a Member of the Committee, was unable to attend but requested a statement on this issue to be read out to the Committee. The statement commented on the possibility that the service could be taken over by a private company resulting in staff leaving and a downgrading of the service. NHS representatives responded by stating that the Boards of all four Trusts did not want an outsourced private option. They wanted to develop a robust NHS service by working together.

     

    (10)       AGREED that:

     

    a)    the Committee deems that proposed changes to Pathology Services in Kent and Medway are not a substantial variation of service, and

     

    b)    NHS representatives be invited to attend this Committee and present an update at an appropriate time.

     

    Supporting documents: