Minutes:
(Item 7)
(Mr J Cunningham, Mr J Fletcher, Mr R Hansell, Mr D Herbert, Mrs A Loveday, Mrs F Witherden, PPIF Members, were in attendance for this item.)
(1) The Committee then took the opportunity of asking the Patient and Public Involvement Forum representatives some questions. In particular they were keen to hear from Patient and Public Involvement Forum representatives for the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust.
(2) The Committee had specific questions they wished to ask the Patient and Public Involvement Forum Members including:
(a) Whether there was a shared work programme for Patient and Public Involvement Fora across Kent and Medway.
(b) How the Patient and Public Involvement Fora decided what their priorities were for inclusion in their work programme.
(c) What arrangements there were for Patient and Public Involvement Fora to pick up things that emerged from complaints made through the Patient Advice and Liaison Services, and Independent Complaints Advocacy Services.
(d) Whether the Patient and Public Involvement Fora regarded it as core business each year to produce third-party commentaries on NHS bodies’ performance against Core Standards as part of the Health Care Commission’s Annual Health Check process.
(3) Asked for his comments on the Healthcare Commission Report on Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells Trust, Mr Herbert responded that overall it was helpful. However, the media coverage had focussed on management failings, which he felt was unfortunate as it had distracted attention from other reasons for what had occurred. He acknowledged that funding was a huge issue for Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust; a deficit had led to underspending on the nursing budget, for which criticism was due.
(4) He felt that if relationships between the PCT and the acute hospital Trust had been better, and if the Strategic Health Authority had undertaken its performance management role more effectively, then there would not have been the need for the Healthcare Commission Report.
(5) He felt that some senior clinicians and nurses were culpable for the provision of poor care, but this had been glossed over. He acknowledged the difficulty that management had had in implementing changes, which he attributed to the lack of support from some senior clinicians.
(6) He felt that the non-executive directors of the Trust also needed to consider their role and responsibilities.
(7) Mr Herbert referred to a PPIF press release, which had been made available to the Committee on 9 November, recounting the actions that they had taken following the initial BBC South East television news report on hospital cleanliness in 2004. He commented that nobody had picked up on some of the issues which the PPIF had referred to in their third-party commentaries for the Healthcare Commission Annual Health Check.
(8) Mrs Loveday raised concerns that, with the abolition of Patient and Public Involvement Fora, there would be a potential loss of continuity and competence, as had happened with the abolition of Community Health Councils.
(9) Mr Herbert said that Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust Patient and Public Involvement Forum would be producing a final report for the new Local Involvement Network. Asked what they felt about the HOSC, there was general agreement among Patient and Public Involvement Forum colleagues that there was now better preparation for meetings and that the Committee’s new way of working was a step in the right direction.
(10) The HOSC needed to prioritise and stick to those priorities to ensure that impetus was not lost.
(11) One member said that he was impressed by the range of topics that had been covered by the HOSC and how well they were researched. The Overview and Scrutiny Manager said that the Patient and Public Involvement Forum colleagues were a significant foundation stone for the HOSC’s work. Kent was struggling, as were a number of local authorities, with exactly how the Local Involvement Network would operate; but Kent was keen to ensure that the Local Involvement Network was placed in a position where it added value to the patients and public of the county. He indicated that the County Council might have to ensure that there were transitional arrangements put in place for a period, as it was possible that the Local Involvement Network for Kent would not be operational by 1 April 2008.
It had been evident in gathering written evidence on healthcare-associated infection prevention and control that the Patient and Public Involvement Fora, the Health Overview and Scrutiny Community, the Patient Advice and Liaison Service etc., had not been communicating and coordinating their work as well as they should have done.
The Overview and Scrutiny Manager said he felt it would be useful to have a mutual understanding of what should be achieved and hopefully a well-developed complementary work programme.