Agenda item

This item was taken after item 4.

In virtual attendance from NHS England for this item: Janet Meek (Regional Director of Commissioning (Specialised Services)), and Hazel Fisher (Director of Transformation and Programmes, Specialised Services).

1.         Ms Meek introduced the item, explaining that the current main Principal Treatment Centre (PTC) located at Royal Marsden Hospital did not have a Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) and therefore no longer met the standards required to host the service. The Hospital had decided to withdraw from the contract.

2.         NHS London had undertaken an options appraisal for the location of a future PTC. The shortlisted options were St George’s University Hospital and Guy’s and St Thomas’ at Evelina Children’s Hospital.

3.         The intended benefits of a relocation included better care on a single site, compliance with the standards, fewer treatment transfers and improved development opportunities for staff.

4.         Residents from a broad geography accessed the specialist services and NHS England were therefore consulting neighbouring HOSCs. The Committee were told 107 children from Kent and Medway accessed the service in 2019/20, which was a similar number to other affected counties. Both options would require travel to London, as the current location did.

5.         Ms Meek explained the NHS were entering the pre-consultation phase, scheduled for early June for a duration of 12 weeks. It was hoped there would be a decision about the new site by the end of October 2023.

6.         Asked why the data was not more recent than 2019-20, Ms Meek explained that due to the pandemic, those figures were the most accurate available. A data lake had been established pre-covid using 2019-20 data and this had been assured and validated by Trusts. Patient numbers remained fairly stable and the current numbers were not expected to have changed significantly since 2019-20. That assertion would be supported by NHS London carrying out deep dives into specific areas. The data lake exercise had been extensive and it was not felt that significant value would be added by carrying it out again so soon.

7.         A Member questioned the impact on travel and accessibility of the proposed sites. Ms Meek explained the use of shared care units which allowed children and young people to access some elements of their care closer to home. The options appraisals had included travel analysis. Ms Fisher added that public transport was not always the most appropriate option for patients and that transport and refunds for parking charges were offered where appropriate. These would be set out in the Pre-Consultation Business Case.

8.         Asked if there had been any conversations with Transport for London on behalf of those requiring regular access to care, as to whether they could be exempt from charges, Ms Meek said she would take the idea away to look into.

9.         Members asked what work had been undertaken with charities. Ms Fisher explained a stakeholder group had been established as part of the programme’s governance, and charities were represented on this. This would ensure they could be kept updated and the consultation’s reach could be maximised, perhaps by commissioning charities to run elements of the consultation.

10.      The Chair summarised the discussion, highlighting that service provision was expected to be the same albeit from a different site, still in London.  Just over 100 children per year would be affected, and the re-location would result in less transfers between multiple sites. Some engagement had commenced, and more was due to take place. For those reasons he proposed the change l was not substantial but invited NHS England back to present the results of the consultation.

RESOLVED that

      i.        the proposals relating to children’s cancer services arenot substantial;

    ii.        NHS representatives be invited to attend HOSC and present an update after the consultation.