Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 22 January 2024 as an accurate record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 January 2024 were agreed as an accurate record.

Members are invited to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) and other registrable and non-registrable interests they may have in relation to any item(s) of business on today’s agenda.

There were no disclosures of interest made at the meeting.

To receive notice of any business not on the agenda which in the opinion of the Chair, by reason of special circumstances, be considered as a matter of urgency.

There were no items of urgent business for consideration of the Health & Social Care Sub-Committee at this meeting.

The Health & Social Care Sub-Committee is presented with an update on the readiness of pharmacies in Croydon to deliver the Pharmacy First scheme announced by the Government on 1 February 2024. The Sub-Committee is asked to:

1.    Note the update provided on the Pharmacy First scheme.

2.    Consider whether its conclusions on the information provided and whether there are any areas in need of further scrutiny.

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 15 to 18 of the agenda which provided an update on the Pharmacy First Scheme that was recently rolled out nationally by the Government and NHS England which aimed to give patients quick and accessible care while easing the pressure on GP services.

-          Councillor Yvette Hopley – Cabinet Member for Health and Adult Social Care

-          Councillor Margaret Bird – Deputy Cabinet Member for Health and Adult Social Care

-          Matthew Kershaw – Chief Executive at Croydon Health Services and Place-based Leader for Health

-          Rachel Flowers – Director of Public Health

-          Annette McPartland – Corporate Director of Adult Social Care & Health

Mathew Kershaw, Chief Executive at Croydon Health Services and Place-based Leader for Health, introduced the report. It was explained that the main objective of the Pharmacy First scheme was to open up the option for residents to access pharmaceutical advice as opposed to attending primary care or in some cases emergency department in hospitals. It was further added that it was a national initiative. It was stressed that Croydon had very good coverage compared to other authorities, with around 68 community pharmacies signed up for the programme. It was explained that this translated into around 96% coverage across the Borough. It was further explained that in many cases these services had been previously available in many pharmacies, however, the Pharmacy First scheme aimed to bring more structure and consistency to the offered services.

The first question asked by the Sub-Committee considered any unintended consequences of rolling out the Pharmacy First scheme, and asked whether the scheme required the participating pharmacies to have a designated private area for examination and conversations between pharmacists and patients. Mr Kershaw responded that so far, they had not observed any unintended consequences, however, it was stressed that the scheme was rolled out very recently. It was also highlighted that pharmacists were trained healthcare professionals and before the scheme was launched, they were already able to provide the same level of support. Therefore, they did not expect any unintended consequences to arise. Nonetheless, it was stressed that they would continue to monitor the scheme. In terms of pharmacy facilities, it was agreed that designated spaces allowing privacy were very important. Confirmation could not be given as to whether each pharmacy had adequate space, however, this would be expected to be available when a pharmacy signed up to participate in the scheme.

A supplementary question was asked by the Sub-Committee Member regarding the referrals and whether a patient could be refused care by a GP practice if they did not want to seek help in a pharmacy beforehand. It was explained that a patient cannot be forced to seek care elsewhere, and their needs would be assessed at the GP practice. It was stressed that this kind of appointment would often not require an engagement with a GP, but then a different healthcare practitioner would be assigned.

Subsequently, the Sub-Committee asked a question about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11/24

The Health & Social Care Sub-Committee is presented with an update on the management of waiting lists for elective care at Croydon University Hospital. The Sub-Committee is asked to:

1.    Note the update provided on the management of waiting lists at Croydon University Hospital.

2.    Consider whether its conclusions on the information provided and whether there are any areas in need of further scrutiny.

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 19 to 26 of the agenda which provided a follow-up from the Sub-Committee’s visit to the Elective Centre at Croydon University Hospital in regard of managing its waiting lists for elective care. The report was introduced by Mathew Kershaw, Chief Executive at Croydon Health Services and Place-based Leader of Health.

-          Councillor Yvette Hopley – Cabinet Member for Health and Adult Social Care

-          Councillor Margaret Bird – Deputy Cabinet Member for Health and Adult Social Care

-          Matthew Kershaw – Chief Executive at Croydon Health Services and Place-based Leader of Health

-          Rachel Flowers – Director of Public Health

-          Annette McPartland – Corporate Director of Adult Social Care & Health

The first question asked by the Sub-Committee asked how the reduction in waiting times for patients waiting for more than 65 and 78 weeks had been achieved and what strategies were being implemented to maintain the process. It was advised that the hospital had created a facility that allowed services to be planned more efficiently, and as a result utilise existing resources more effectively. It was explained that the hospital had created an area for elective care only, which helped to reduce the risk of postponing the surgery due to emergency needs. It was further explained that CHS had also improved the efficiency and expanded capacity of their operating theatres. However, it was stressed that it continued to be an ongoing journey, and they had not yet achieved the desired results.

The next question from the Sub-Committee asked about the analysis conducted on the waiting list data, and whether it had indicated that any groups were being more affected by prolonged waiting times than the others.  It was explained that the most effective way to reduce the disparities was to decrease overall waiting times. It was added that together with Public Health, CHS had been working on population health management and health inequalities to identify any potential themes. Assurance was offered that if any inequalities were identified, there would be appropriate changes implemented. It was also highlighted that waiting times in Croydon were lower than the rest of the South-West London and most of London.

The Sub-Committee questioned whether residents requiring more complex surgery tended to have a longer wait than other patients. It was explained that surgery was scheduled based on the urgency. Therefore, if a more complex surgery was relatively urgent, then the waiting time would be appropriately shorter. It was further explained that if the clinical urgency was equal to many other procedures, then the waiting time would depend on the demand for that particular service and availability of the consultants. It was assured that for areas with historically higher waiting times, for instance hip surgeries, CHS were constantly trying to improve the efficiency and availability of slots.

The Sub-Committee asked a supplementary question about whether a patient’s condition was monitored while they were waiting for their elective surgery. Assurance was given that an appropriate mechanism was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12/24

To receive an update from Healthwatch Croydon Co-optee, Gordon Kay, on the latest report from his organisation.

Gordon Kay representing Healthwatch Croydon provided a presentation covering two following areas – (i) Preventable Mental Health and Wellbeing Support Services within Black African and Caribbean Communities, and (ii) Virtual Wards.

Conclusions:

From its discussions of the Update from Healthwatch Croydon, the Sub-Committee reached the following conclusions:

1.     The Sub-Committee recognised and commended the hard work done by the Healthwatch Croydon.

The Health & Social Care Sub-Committee is asked to: -

1.    Note the completed 2023-24 Work Programme, as presented in the report.

2.    Consider whether there are any areas of scrutiny to scope as potential items for inclusion in the 2024-25 work programme.

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out in the agenda on pages 27-31 which set out its work programme for the remainder of the year.

The Sub-Committee agreed to have a separate meeting to discuss the work programme for the upcoming municipal year. In addition to that the Sub-Committee Members stressed the importance of including the mental health topics, including SLAM and their work at schools, and Croydon Health Services Quality Accounts.

Resolved: That the Health and Social Care Sub-Committee work programme is noted.

The following motion is to be moved and seconded where it is proposed to exclude the press and public from the remainder of a meeting:

“That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within those paragraphs indicated in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended.”