Agenda item

Oluwatoyin Sosanya (Public Health Pharmacy and Quality Lead) was in attendance for this item

1.    Mrs Crouch (Consultant for Public Health )introduced the report and noted that, in accordance with statutory requirements, the Council was required to regularly review and publish the pharmacy services needed in Kent, both currently and in the future. This analysis was presented in the Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment (PNA) included within the papers. The assessment informed commissioning decisions by NHS England and the Integrated Care Board (ICB), ensuring that services met population needs and addressed identified gaps.

2.    Mrs Sosanya reiterated that the Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment (PNA) was a statutory document designed to assess the current and future need for pharmaceutical services in Kent over the next three years. It considered the health needs of the Kent population and how these could be met by services commissioned by the NHS, including pharmacies, appliance contractors, and dispensing GPs. The PNA was a key document used by NHS England, Integrated Care Boards (ICBs), and local authorities to inform commissioning decisions, including market entry decisions to the pharmaceutical list, which were determined by the ICB.

3.    The PNA had been developed with the support of a specialist provider, commissioned through a competitive tender process, and overseen by the Kent PNA Steering Group. The steering group included representatives from system partners such as the Local Medical Committee, Local Pharmaceutical Committee, Healthwatch, and the ICB. It met four times at critical stages for review, discussion, and sign-off. Early in the process, engagement took place with the public and pharmaceutical providers through a questionnaire, followed by a statutory public consultation. Both activities informed the final document. At the time of writing, no gaps had been identified in the provision of pharmaceutical services across Kent, and monitoring would continue on behalf of the Health and Wellbeing Board.

4.    Further to questions and comments from Members the discussion included the following:

(a)  In response to concerns regarding the PNA’s conclusion of no gaps, raised in light of pharmacy closures, increased queue times, and the ability to meet growing needs, particularly regarding prevention and an ageing population, Mrs Sosanya explained that a robust, evidence-based process had been followed. She confirmed the PNA considered population needs and financial stability, and the steering group agreed that the network was sufficient at the time. She emphasised that the PNA was a snapshot in time, monitoring would continue with ICB and system partners, and supplementary statements would be published as needed to inform future applications.

(b)  Clarification was sought as to the process that would be followed should gaps be identified in pharmaceutical services. Mrs Sosanya explained that the landscape would continue to be monitored and minor changes addressed through supplementary statements, which would signal to the ICB that updates to the pharmaceutical list should be considered in future applications. She confirmed that the Health and Wellbeing Board was required to publish a new Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment every three years, but could do so earlier if there were significant demographic changes or risks to health and wellbeing in Kent.

(c)  Queries were raised as to the defined thresholds that would automatically trigger a review of the PNA, such as a pharmacy closure, rather than relying on resident complaints. Mrs Sosanya advised that changes to the pharmaceutical list, including closures or altered opening hours, were notified by the ICB and analysed for impact on service needs. Significant changes, such as the closure of Lloyd’s Pharmacy in the past, had prompted detailed discussions with the ICB. She confirmed that monitoring was continuous, and where changes were deemed significant, the Health and Wellbeing Board could decide to revise the entire PNA. She noted that much depended on what was considered significant.

(d)  Concerns were expressed regarding the ICB’s “one-size-fits-all” approach and issues were highlighted regarding pharmaceutical closures in rural wards, with exceptions for those who were disabled or very elderly continuing to receive prescriptions locally with other residents forced to travel three miles to the nearest pharmacy. It was felt that the new system was less efficient, with delays of up to 10 days for prescription acknowledgements. Mrs Sosanyaexplained that the distribution of community pharmacies reflected both rural and urban needs, and that dispensing GPs remained available in rural areas under strict criteria, such as residents living more than 1.6 km from a pharmacy. She also highlighted the option of online pharmacies that delivered nationwide. Mr Waller (Chief Strategy and Partnerships Officer and Chief Delivery /Commissioning Officer(interim) – NHS Kent and Medway - Integrated Care Board) added that the PNA was based on a detailed regulatory framework for assessing need, which was separate from how providers delivered services. He clarified that NHS managed pharmacies and dispensing doctors through contracts and could act if services failed to meet contractual standards, with elected members able to provide feedback to support this process. Should the public have concerns regarding individual contractors’ performance and compliance with contractual obligations, this matter could be addressed via complaining to the pharmacy , and if not resolved, via the ICB complaints procedure or Healthwatch

5.    RESOLVED that the Health and Wellbeing Board approve the final 2025-2028 Pharmaceutical Needs Assessment and note that the previously approved PNA process had occurred