NHS Brighton and Hove, NHS East Sussex and NHS West Sussex Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) Primary Care Commissioning Committees (PCCC) in ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
NHS Brighton and Hove, NHS East Sussex and
NHS West Sussex Clinical Commissioning Groups
(CCGs)
Primary Care Commissioning Committees (PCCC)
in Common held in public
Minutes
Date: Tuesday 15 September 2020
Time: 10:00 – 12:05
Location: Meeting held virtually
Convening Chair: Gill Galliano
NHS Brighton and Hove CCG
Present
Lola Banjoko (nominated deputy for Executive Managing Director
Karen Breen) (LB)
Wendy Carberry (WC) Executive Director Primary Care
Mandy Catchpole (nominated Deputy Director of Quality and Infection
deputy for Allison Cannon) (MC) Prevention
Gill Galliano (GG) Lay Vice Chair (PCCC Convening Chair)
Mike Holdgate (MH) Lay Member for Patient and Public Engagement
Dr Jerry Luke (JL) Independent Clinical Member – GP (and LMC
representative B&H)
Pippa Ross-Smith (nominated Director of Finance
deputy for Chris Adcock) (PRS)
NHS East Sussex CCG
Present
Jessica Britton (nominated deputy Executive Managing Director
for Karen Breen) (JB)
Wendy Carberry (WC) Executive Director Primary Care
Mandy Catchpole (nominated Deputy Director of Quality and Infectiondeputy for Allison Cannon) (MC) Prevention
Dr Naeem Iqbal (NI) Independent Clinical Member – GP
Gulzar Mufti (GM) Independent Clinical Member - Secondary Care
Clinician
Pippa Ross-Smith (nominated Director of Finance
deputy for Chris Adcock) (PRS)
Julia Rudrum (JR) The Lay Vice Chair (PCCC Chair)
NHS West Sussex CCG
Present
Wendy Carberry (WC) Executive Director Primary Care
Mandy Catchpole (nominated Deputy Director of Quality and Infection
deputy for Allison Cannon) (MC) Prevention
Nick Deyes (ND) Lay Member for Patient and Public Engagement
Pennie Ford (nominated deputy for Executive Managing Director
Karen Breen) (PF)
Pippa Ross-Smith (nominated Director of Finance
deputy for Chris Adcock) (PRS)
In attendance
Stephen Bellamy Locality Representative (West Sussex)
Steven Boxwell Locality Representative (East Sussex)
Laurence Brice Primary Care Co-commissioning Manager, NHS
Sussex Commissioners
Katrina Broadhill Director, Healthwatch (West Sussex)
Lester Coleman (item 9.4) Healthwatch
Darrell Gale (left 11:57) Director of Public Health, (East Sussex)
Nina Graham Locality Representative (Brighton and Hove)
Naomi Hicks Governance Officer (Minutes) NHS Sussex
Commissioners
Alistair Hill Director of Public Health (Brighton and Hove)
Fiona Kellett (item 9.2) Head of Estates, NHS Sussex Commissioners
David Liley (item 9.4) Chief Executive Officer, Healthwatch
Jane Lodge (item 9.4) Associate Director of Public Involvement, NHS
Sussex Commissioners
Hugo Luck Associate Director, Primary and Community
Care, NHS Sussex Commissioners
2Debbie Ludlam (joined 10:30) Public Involvement Manager NHS Brighton and
Hove CCG
Elizabeth Mackie (attending for John Healthwatch (East Sussex)
Routledge)
Jen Newell Governance Officer, NHS Sussex
Commissioners
Patience Okorie Locality Representative (West Sussex)
Paul Pallister Senior Governance Adviser, NHS Sussex
Commissioners
Zoe Powell (attending for Charlotte NHSE
Rippen)
Karen Sallis Head of Primary Care, NHS Sussex
Commissioners
Steve Sollitt Head of Primary Care, NHS Sussex
Commissioners
Elizabeth Tinley Lead Manager, Primary Care Contracts, NHS
Sussex Commissioners
Eight members of the public
Apologies (Membership)
Louise Ansari Lay Member for Patient and Public Engagement
(West Sussex)
Dr Richard Brown Independent Clinical Member – GP (and LMC
representative West Sussex)
Mark Hammond The Lay Vice Chair (West Sussex PCCC Chair)
Hugh McIntyre Independent Clinical Member - Secondary Care
Clinician (West Sussex)
Charles Turton Independent Clinical Member - Secondary Care
Clinician (Brighton and Hove)
Item
Item description Action
ref
6. Standard Items
6.1 Welcome, introductions, and confirmation of quoracy.
The Chair welcomed Committee members, and members of the
public in attendance to the Primary Care Commissioning
Committees (PCCC) in Common for NHS Brighton and Hove
CCG, NHS East Sussex CCG and NHS West Sussex CCG. The
virtual meeting protocol arrangements for the meeting were
3outlined.
Apologies for absence were received from the members listed
above.
It was noted that whilst NHS East Sussex CCG PCCC Committee
was quorate, the NHS Brighton and Hove CCG and NHS West
Sussex CCG PCCC Committees were not, and any decisions
relating to those Committees would subject to approval virtually
following the meeting.
[Post meeting note: decisions of the NHS Brighton and Hove
CCG and NHS West Sussex CCG Primary Care Commissioning
Committees were virtually agreed by the Independent Clinical
Member - Secondary Care Clinicians (Brighton and Hove) on 20
September 2020 and (West Sussex) on 24 September 2020. All
decisions have now been approved.]
7. Committee Administration
7.1. Declarations of conflicts of interest
The Committees noted that there were no new or previously
declared interests considered to be prejudicial to any of the
agenda items.
7.2. Questions from the public (submitted in advance)
Two questions from members of the public had been received in
advance of the meeting. The questions were read out by the Chair
and the members of the public were asked for points of
clarification.
The first question related to public transport and vulnerable
patients. Due to the complexity of the issues raised, the response
would be prepared by the clinical leads in primary care, and would
be sent to the requester within the next seven days.
The second related to the reinstatement of the public forum which
had previously been held ahead of the NHS Brighton and Hove
CCG PCCC. It was confirmed that the CCGs would be in a
position to clarify the CCGs’ model for public engagement at the
November PCCC.
The members of the public were in attendance and added points
of clarification.
The Chair confirmed that the responses which would be attached
as an addendum to the minutes and would be available on the
three CCG public websites. (See addendum 1).
7.3. Minutes of the previous meeting
The Chair presented the minutes of the previous meeting and
invited committee members to comment on accuracy.
4The Committees approved the minutes.
7.4. Action Log
The Chair presented the action log.
The Committees approved the logs and the recommendations for
closure.
7.5. Director’s Report
Wendy Carberry (WC) presented the Director’s Report and
highlighted the following key points:
The report covered the phase three recovery work being
carried out by primary care. Services were being
reinstated, but with the recognition that there was a need to
socially distance to protect both staff and patients. Hot
sites were being consolidated to support services going
forward.
As required by NHS England (NHSE), all Sussex Primary
Care Networks (PCNs) had submitted their workforce
plans. The plans supported the maximum use of Additional
Roles Reimbursement Scheme (ARRS).
The flu programme had been extended. An additional
200,000 vaccines were planned for Sussex.
Primary care were working with the Local Medical Council
(LMC) on locally commissioned services (LCS). The
mobilisation of these were being prioritised based on the
requirements of a population. Funding was secured until
31 March 2021.
Additional resource was in place for the development of
strategic plans for the next 3-5 years in Brighton and Hove,
East Sussex and West Sussex.
The following points were raised in discussion:
There was anxiety in primary care that the LCSs and
particularly the Care Homes LCS was additional work over
and above the Network Directed Enhanced Services
(DES). To mobilise and recruit members of staff to deliver
an LCS it was important to have a clear timescale.
It was confirmed that the new Care Home LCS to
supplement the DES would be available by 1 December
2020.
The Committees resolved to take assurance from the Director’s
Report.
8. Delegated Commissioning of Primary Medical Care
8.1. Quality Report
Mandy Catchpole (MC) presented the Quality Report and
5highlighted the following key points:
Practices have been supported throughout the Covid-19
pandemic from an Infection Control Perspective. Guidance
had been introduced in respect of hot sites and training as
required.
Additional support from the Quality Team had been
provided in Medicines Management (MM) to ensure that
patients were receiving high quality services.
Winter planning and the national influenza vaccination
programme had been a key area of focus.
The following was raised in discussion:
Primary care workforce was a recurring theme throughout
the reports to the Committees. The focus of initiatives
appeared to be training and career development for
existing staff with less emphasis on the recruitment of
clinical staff.
There were initiatives that supported both. Training hubs
supported development to retain staff. Fellowship roles
had been introduced in Sussex which had brought more
clinical expertise into the role. Sussex health and Care
partnership (SHCP) had a work stream focusing on primary
care recruitment. Workforce and recruitment continued to
be both a local and national challenge.
A locality rep raised that as a PCN Manager, the work in
the training hubs supporting the PCNs and delivery
managers with the recruitment of the ARRS had not been
visible to them.
The Committees discussed detail relating to the flu
programme for Sussex. It was confirmed that year 7
children would be vaccinated by the school programme,
which was a separately commissioned service outside of
primary care.
The most vulnerable members of the community would be
vaccinated in phase 1, with 50 – 64 year olds in phase 2
with a system wide approach to delivery. The potential
non-availability of vaccines for the phase 2 age group had
been identified as a risk.
The households, and carers of shielded patients would be
harder to identify and to reach. The expansion of the flu
programme was a national programme; strategies to
contact these people would be designed and carried out
locally.
Communication and engagement with the public about the
flu programme was being developed, including
reassurance to patients on safety measures that would be
in place.
6The Committees resolved to take assurance from the reports.
Action (3) MC to include more detail on primary care
MC
workforce recruitment in the November 2020 Quality report to
10/11/2020
PCCCs in common.
Action (4) The Quality team to ensure that Nina Graham and MC
other PCN Managers were engaged with the training hubs 25/11/2020
and their work in supporting the recruitment of ARRS.
8.2. Primary Care Commissioning Finance Reports:
Pippa Ross Smith (PRS) presented the Finance Reports for each
CCG for month 4 and highlighted the following key points:
When Covid-19 emerged, all CCGs went into special
measures legal directions to enable a new funding regime
from NHSE. The funding regime was from April to July in
the first instance and for this reason, the reports were
forecasting to the end of July 2020.
This has been rolled over to the end of September
2020. The CCG are awaiting information on finances for
the remainder of the year. All three CCGs reported similar
issues.
All three CCGs were overspent on delegated co
commissioning allocation in month due to it being rebated
to the CCGs one month in arrears.
NHS Brighton and Hove and NHS East Sussex CCGs were
showing as over spent against Medicines Management for
prescribing, these monies had been claimed and since
received. The funds for NHS West Sussex CCG had been
received previously and were running to budget.
Covid-19 claims were shown separately and previous
claims had been refunded to the CCGs during August
2020.
LCS payments were being made on historic basis using 19-
20 figures the minor variations were due to timing and
phasing.
The finance team expected to report an end of year
forecast at November 2020 PCCCs in common, subject to
national guidance and planning.
The following points were raised in discussion:
A deep dive on the causes of the overspends in prescribing
was a continuing work stream within the Finance and
Performance Committee.
The potential for a no deal Brexit could also have an
adverse effect on prescribing costs.
The Committees resolved to take assurance from the reports.
8.3. Primary Care Risk Register
7Paul Pallister (PP) presented an update on the integrated risk
management arrangements across Sussex and the operational
risk registers relating to Primary Care. The following key points
were highlighted:
As a result of feedback from the Governing Bodies, the risk
management system had been refined, bringing it more
into line with best practice.
A new risk report template has been developed to present
all of the risk information in one report.
A series of structured risk review sessions had been
carried out. Through constructive challenge, the risk
descriptors, controls and assurances were reviewed and
the impacts of Covid-19 were considered. New areas of
risk were also identified and added to the risk registers.
The report included a review of the material changes to the risks
since they had last been reported:
The Primary Care Estates risk has been closed as the
Primary Care Estates Strategy was going through approval.
The Flu Vaccination Programme risk level has increased
which was described at agenda item 8.1.
The Covid-19 Pandemic risk has been reduced, reflecting
the move by NHSE of the incident to level 3 from level 4.
The Any Qualified Provider risk has reduced as the
services have been restarted.
The following points were raised in discussion:
The new format was commended. The new methodology
helped understanding and gaps in control and assurance
were much clearer.
It was clarified that an identical report was not presented to
every Committee. The five Committees listed on the report
front sheet each received a risk report relevant to their
scope.
The Covid-19 risk had been reduced but was reflective of
the amount of work that had been completed and the
position of the health systems in Sussex at this time. The
risk was under continual review.
The mitigating actions relating to the Workforce risk
(SX0040) were not explicit. The target date for them was
the end of March 2021. The Committees felt progression
was required to be reported before then.
Although primary care estates strategy risk had been
closed from the risk register, it was recognised that, with
the development of the PCN work force, lack of
appropriate space in buildings continued to be a significant
challenge. A new risk was being created which would
8focus on the implementation of the primary care estates
strategy. The new risk would be live by the time of the
PCCC meetings in November 2020.
The Committees reviewed and resolved to take assurance from
the risk register report.
Action (5) PP and assessor of risk SX0040 to look at the PP
actions to address the risk and identify milestones that could 10/11/2020
be added to provide assurance that progress was being
made.
8.4. Local Matters
8.4.1 East Dean Practice Closure (NHS East Sussex CCG)
Steve Sollitt (SS) and Wendy Carberry (WC) presented the report
and highlighted the following key points:
The report related to an application from the Old School
Surgery in Seaford to close the East Dean branch.
WC added that she supported the proposal. It was
necessary and a logical step forward. There was a small
population in East Dean and the practice struggled to
cover the branch surgery. The branch had been closed
since March due to Covid-19, with most of the patient
population attending Seaford practices.
The following points were raised in discussion:
Councillor Stephen Shing from East Sussex had submitted
comments via the Executive Director for Primary Care in
advance of the meeting. It was recognised that there was
a difference in the voting population in East Dean
compared to the population (or list size) of the practice.
Three housebound patients had contacted him about
difficulties in accessing services at Seaford. He requested
that if the closure was approved, that consideration was
given to the provision of services to housebound patients in
East Dean.
It was acknowledged that the practices had considered
how to meet the needs of these patients and the CCG
would continue to work through this with them.
The (NHS East Sussex CCG) Committee questioned if the
impact of closing East Dean on neighbouring practices had
been fully understood. One neighbouring practice had
stated that they could not cope in the current climate if
patients were moved to their site.
There were 2200 patients in East Dean and the majority of
them were registered in Eastbourne. For the last six
months, all East Dean branch patients had been attending
the Seaford Practice due to Covid-19. There was a large
new development in Old Town which was three miles away
from East Dean. It would be a 30,000 patient practice and
9would have capacity within that to take new registrations if
they chose to re-register in Eastbourne. There were three
other practices in Eastbourne who had confirmed that they
had capacity to register patients.
The patient and public engagement report gave helpful
statistics relating to usage but there was limited information
on whether the patients supported the proposal as users of
the service. Primary care agreed that this would be
discussed with the practice, but that due to two GPs
leaving, there was a difficulty in staffing three sites. The
consultation rooms at East Dean were on the first floor, and
there being no lift, anyone with mobility issues would have
to attend the Seaford practice.
The (NHS East Sussex CCG) Committee recognised and
were reassured about the difficulties and the limitations of
the branch site and the need to provide safe and effective
services.
Healthwatch had not received any concerns directly from
patients on this item.
The NHS East Sussex CCG Committee resolved to approve the
Practice Closure.
Action (6) LB to follow up with the practice to confirm the
arrangements for continued provision of services to LB
housebound patients in East Dean and provide feedback on 10/11/2020
patient support for the proposal.
8.4.2 Shoreham and Southwick Practice Merger (NHS West
Sussex CCG)
The Chair noted that as the NHS West Sussex CCG Committee
was not quorate, the decision would subject to approval virtually
following the meeting.
SS presented the report and highlighted the following key points:
The report related to a three way merger of practices in
West Sussex. The original application was discussed with
the CCG in 2019. Covid-19 had changed the way that
some practices operated physically within their footprint.
The Primary Care team were very supportive of this
proposal. Practices had come together to ensure the
sustainability of primary care in Sussex.
Committee members expressed disappointment that the
West Sussex Committee was not quorate and as such,
decisions relating to the merger would be delayed.
The following points were raised in discussion:
Healthwatch offered support and a request to be involved
with discussions relating to mergers in the future.
10Those present for the NHS West Sussex CCG Committee
resolved to approve the merger.
[Post meeting note: the decision of the NHS West Sussex CCG
Primary Care Commissioning Committee was virtually agreed by
the Independent Clinical Member - Secondary Care Clinician on
24 September 2020.]
9. Primary Care Strategy
9.1. Restoration and Recovery Work plan
Wendy Carberry (WC) and Hugo Luck (HL) presented the
Restoration and Recovery Work plan and highlighted the following
key points:
The programme format allowed primary care work streams
to be tracked and updated on a weekly basis. There were
25 work streams in total, each with a Senior Responsible
Officer (SRO) and a lead.
The report highlighted actions taken and the risks
identified, in response to the phase three letter from Simon
Stevens on 31 July 2020. It reflected the primary care
contribution to the overall system recovery to the Covid-19
response.
The Digital and Technology work stream, which was
worked up initially as one of the programmes of restoration
and recovery; now underpinned many of the programmes.
The restoration of LCSs had been focused on restoring
services to the highest risk patients; including patients with
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cardiac
patients, those with diabetes and patients living in care
homes.
All PCNs had signed up to the network DES which would
go live on 1 October 2020. The CCGs’ engagement with
membership would be a key focus in the future.
The planning for the extended flu programme was ongoing
and had been recognised as a risk. A gap analysis had
been carried out on what could and could not be delivered
by general practice, community pharmacists, PCNs, GP
federations and other providers. Governance around the
flu programme was rigorous with regular meetings taking
place at all levels of the organisation and the wider health
system.
The following points were raised in discussion:
It was difficult to understand how patient and public
engagement had influenced the work programmes and how
the lived experiences of patients and their families had
informed the transformation of services.
Operationally, patient engagement was happening. Much
of the current activity was focused on the re-
11implementation of existing services. There was a larger
piece of work around patient and public engagement in
care homes and with carers living with shielding patients.
The Committees reflected that during Covid-19, actions
were mandated. The CCG were in legal directions and
were advised how to spend finances.
A letter had been sent to GP practices from NHSE about
the need to offer face to face appointments where clinically
appropriate. The CCG had telephoned all 178 practices
and reviewed all 178 websites to ensure that face to face
appointments were available. In a population of 1.2 million,
the CCG were aware of two patients who had described a
different experience. Although a patient might prefer a
face to face appointment, it might not be clinically
appropriate.
Interface groups between secondary and primary care
clinicians had been set up to ensure that flow for patients
was correct.
An article published in the press had stated that patients
could choose a face to face appointment. The NHSE letter
to practices had not stated that, but had emphasised the
need for clinical appropriateness with consultations which
may not always accord with patient preferences.
The Committees commented that the report was
comprehensive. The volume and complexity of the work
was appreciated.
The Committees requested that the executive summary of
future reports provided highlights for the Committees
attention including advice on how to interpret the
information, information on when the strategies would be
available to the Committees and whether there were
particular gaps or concerns that the Committees should
discuss or escalate.
The Committees resolved to take assurance from the report.
Action (7) - HL to ensure future reports address feedback HL
regarding the focus for Committee members in the executive 10/11/2020
summary and that reports articulate how patients’ voices
have shaped and impacted the elements of service
transformation included in the plan.
9.2. Primary Care Estates Strategy
The Chair noted that as the NHS Brighton and Hove CCG and
NHS West Sussex CCG PCCC Committees were not quorate
decisions relating to those Committees would subject to approval
virtually following the meeting.
Fiona Kellett (FK) presented the Primary Care Estates Strategy
and highlighted the following key points:
12 The Primary Care Estates Strategy brought together the
current primary care estate plans in each CCG into a
Sussex wide plan. It included changes to the way primary
care would be delivered going forward including associated
future estate requirements.
The document had been written with the intention that it
could be shared with both partner colleagues across the
system and the public.
The strategy outlines how the CCGs would work with local
district and borough councils to ensure section 106 and
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding was the
primary source of investment for future developments; and
highlighted the expected additional revenue costs of
delivering a primary care estate that would meet the needs
of the future population of Sussex.
A Sussex wide approach ensured that lessons learned
from historical developments, particularly multi
agency/partner developments could be built into planning.
There were very different landscapes in different parts of
Sussex. Population growth in some areas of Sussex was
significant. It was necessary to supporting training practices
and recruitment in the longer term in primary care.
The estates development process was being re-focused on
PCN footprints instead of individual practices and to
support developments at scale, with capacity for population
growth; instead of the smaller schemes. Alongside the
needs of a population, Estates were looking at the needs of
the current practices; the fabric of their estates, recruitment
issues and opportunities for training.
Wider system developments were in train. Estates would
produce an investment timeline for each of the three CCGs.
A paper would be presented at PCCCs in common in
November 2020 to give an outline on the progress and an
indicative investment profile and timeline.
The following points were raised in discussion:
Communications to membership about what could be
achieved by the Estates Strategy had to be clear and the
timeframes in relation to new developments needed to be
realistic. The process for redevelopment was both multi
layered and multi-agency. It was extremely complex; and
therefore could be prohibitive for practices to undertake.
To ensure a greater guarantee of success at the end of the
process, practices, PCNs, and collective community
organisations would require support.
The Committees noted that there was now an Estates
team within the CCGs that could support practices with
project initiation documents (PIDs). The outline and full
business case submission process had become more
13streamlined.
The Committees welcomed the report and looked forward
to further information on the implications for the individual
CCGs.
The NHS East Sussex CCG Committee resolved to endorse the
report.
Those present from the NHS Brighton and Hove CCG and NHS
West Sussex CCG Committees resolved to endorse the report.
[Post meeting note: decisions of the NHS Brighton and Hove
CCG and NHS West Sussex CCG Primary Care Commissioning
Committees were virtually agreed by the Independent Clinical
Member - Secondary Care Clinicians (Brighton and Hove) on 20
September 2020 and (West Sussex) on 24 September 2020.]
9.3. Lancing and Sompting Quality Improvement Scheme
Business Case (NHS West Sussex CCG)
The Chair noted that as the NHS West Sussex CCG Committee
was not quorate, the decision would subject to approval virtually
following the meeting.
Karen Sallis (KS) presented the report and highlighted the
following key points:
A group of practices had applied to use savings from a
previous GP Transformation Agreement (GPTA) scheme
to employ two paramedics to support home visits during
the winter months.
Primary care fully supported the proposal and commended
the practices for having the foresight to pre-load funding
that they would receive in April 2021 which could make a
significant difference to the population over the winter.
The following points were raised in discussion:
The practices would be unable to recruit until they have
received final approval from the Committee.
Those present for the NHS West Sussex CCG Committee
resolved to approve the business case.
[Post meeting note: the decision of the NHS West Sussex CCG
Primary Care Commissioning Committee was virtually agreed by
the Independent Clinical Member - Secondary Care Clinician on
24 September 2020. This approval was subject to the formal
reporting of the outcome of the investment at a future Committee.]
9.4. Public and key stakeholder survey- accessing health and
care services remotely
Jane Lodge (JL), Lester Coleman (LC) and David Liley (DL)
presented the report and highlighted the following key points:
The three Healthwatch organisations across Sussex were
14jointly commissioned by the CCGs to undertake public
involvement surveys to contribute to the restoration and
recovery of services.
The results presented were phase one results, one CCG
survey and one Healthwatch survey were carried out to
ascertain views on remote access to appointments.
There were 2185 surveys filled out and 1:1 interviews with
100 patients. It was recognised that groups of patients
with the greatest health inequalities had not been reached
and the inclusion and engagement programme work was
ongoing to ensure those groups were reached.
The headline findings from the survey were:
• 37.4% of people delayed appointments.
• People with disabilities were more likely to delay
appointments independent of their age, gender, ethnicity,
and sexual orientation.
• 63.3% had phone appointments; 23.2% online; 10.2%
video; 35.4% face-to-face.
• High level of satisfaction with appointments e.g. 80.4%
were satisfied or very satisfied with phone appointments.
Preliminary Conclusions
• Most differences were seen by age and disabilities.
• Younger people were generally happier to receive future
appointments by phone, video and online compared to
older people, for a range of different services.
• People with disabilities were generally less happy with any
of the remote options (especially those affected ‘a lot’).
• A choice of appointments was important – phone, video,
online and face-to-face options.
• Skilling-up public and professionals would be necessary.
The presenters added the following points:
• The survey was skewed towards an older age group.
• Online appointments did not work well for everyone. Some
groups and communities would be at a disadvantage.
Where there was a need for communication support; with
users of sign language or if an interpreter were required,
then face to face contact was important.
• There were nuances for different people. There was a
need to understand all perspectives to ensure any digital
product was meaningful for patients, practices and front
line staff. 11-16 year olds in particular, reported a distinct
fear with remote access appointments.
The following points were raised in discussion:
15• It was important information and it should be used to
inform the direction of travel in primary care. The data
derived from the surveys which focused on hospital
discharge and those patients resident in care homes was
eagerly awaited.
• The Committees found the paper informative. It was
necessary to recognise the needs of those patients with
mental health issues and with patients who were very old
and very young.
• The Committees commented that the terminology ‘GP
appointment’ was used frequently in the report. Patients in
primary care would be offered an appointment with the
most appropriate clinician and therefore it would be helpful
if the survey used ‘Allied Healthcare Professionals
appointments’ as the correct terminology.
• 30% patients reported that they did not want a remote
appointment. The Committees commented that it would be
useful to receive feedback from those that had had a
remote appointment, to ascertain whether it had been a
positive experience.
• It was noted that Healthwatch could ‘require’ organisations
to respond. Healthwatch would expect a plan as a result of
this programme of work in October 2020.
• It would be helpful to see if public views of remote access
changed as time progressed.
• The Committees questioned whether the survey had
statistical significance and whether it was strong enough to
influence decisions on service transformation. Healthwatch
confirmed that this survey echoed wider evidence.
The Committees resolved to note the stakeholder survey report.
10. Risk and Governance
10.1. Matters referred from the Governing Body Committees for
discussion/action by this Committee
There were no matters referred from the Governing Body
Committees for discussion or action by these Committees.
10.2. Matters to Refer to the Governing Body or other committee
There were no matters to refer to the Governing Body or other
Committees.
10.3. Agree Items for Chair's Report to the Governing Body
No items were raised. The Chair’s report would be compiled with
the support of the governance and primary care teams.
10.4. Evaluation of Meeting Performance
Feedback was invited to be submitted by members outside of the
meeting.
16The Chair extended her thanks to Wendy Carberry, it being her
last PCCC before she retired from her post.
The Chair thanked members of the public for attending the
meeting.
10.5. Date of next meeting:
Date: 25 November 2020
Time: 10:00 – 12:00
Location: Virtual
Resolution of Items to be Heard in Private
In accordance with the provisions of Section 1(2) of the Public
Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, it was resolved that the
representatives of the press and other members of the public
were excluded from the second part of the PCCC meeting on the
grounds that it was prejudicial to the public interest due to the
confidential nature of the business about to be transacted. This
section of the meeting was be held in private.
The meeting closed at 12:10
17You can also read
