To receive apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Councillors MJ Fishley and G Lucas.

To receive details of any Member nominated to attend the meeting in place of a Member of the Committee.

There were no named substitutes.

To receive any declarations of interest by Members in respect of items on the Agenda.

GUIDANCE ON DECLARING PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS AT MEETINGS

The Council’s Members’ Code of Conduct requires Councillors to declare against an Agenda item(s) the nature of an interest and whether the interest is personal or prejudicial.  Councillors have to decide first whether or not they have a personal interest in the matter under discussion.  They will then have to decide whether that personal interest is also prejudicial.

A personal interest is an interest that affects the Councillor more than most other people in the area.  People in the area include those who live, work or have property in the area of the Council.  Councillors will also have a personal interest if their partner, relative or a close friend, or an organisation that they or the member works for, is affected more than other people in the area.  If they do have a personal interest, they must declare it but can stay and take part and vote in the meeting. 

Whether an interest is prejudicial is a matter of judgement for each Councillor.  What Councillors have to do is ask themselves whether a member of the public – if he or she knew all the facts – would think that the Councillor’s interest was so important that their decision would be affected by it.  If a Councillor has a prejudicial interest then they must declare what that interest is and leave the meeting room.

There were no declarations of interest.

To approve and sign the Minutes of the meeting held on 31 July 2009.

RESOLVED: That the Minutes of the meeting held on 31 July 2009 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

To consider suggestions from members of the public on issues the Committee could scrutinise in the future.

There were no suggestions from members of the public.

To receive an update from the Trust.

The Committee considered an update from the Trust.

Members noted that targets were not being met in a number of areas within the County and that the findings of the independent review of the Service were due to be published shortly.

The importance of Community First Responders was acknowledged.  Members requested sight of the business plan for training sufficient numbers.

Members also noted the outcome of a Care Quality Commission inspection of the Trust focusing on infection prevention and control and that action plans had been put in place at each ambulance station to address the findings.

To receive an update from the Trust.

The Committee considered an update from the Hospitals Trust.

Members noted the local target to see 65% of A&E attendees within two hours, the national target being that 98% of patients should be seen within four hours.  Mr Coupe, Director of Business Development commented on the complexity of predicting patient flows and ensuring that sufficient staff with the right skill mix were on duty to provide the necessary treatment at A&E within targets.  He also noted the extent to which the efficient operation of A&E was dependent on a wider set of processes within the hospital.

A question was asked about the delivery of a £4.5 million cost improvement plan described in the update.  The Director of Business Development acknowledged that it would be difficult to achieve the plan.  The intention would be to seek to do so by exploring further improvements to the design of care pathways whilst maintaining quality and efficiency of service.  However, the Trust considered it was operating efficiently and in the longer term performance against targets could not be improved without further resources. 

To receive an update from the Primary Care Trust.

The Committee received an update from the Primary Care Trust.

The Director of Integrated Commissioning highlighted the following issues:

·                That the number of cases of swine flu was increasing.  The PCT was working with Partners to take appropriate measures.

·                The launch of a new bowel cancer screening service was imminent.

·                New adult safeguarding procedures were being put in place.

·                There were a number of areas of concern where there had been a recent dip in performance (% age seen within 48 hours in a GUM clinic, cancer waiting times from urgent GP referral to treatment, breast cancer symptom waits; and delayed transfers of care from hospital to home).

·                The publication of an independent report on the West Midlands Ambulance Service was now imminent.  He noted in particular the finding that further investment should be made in community first responders.

·                There were high levels of inappropriate attendance at the Accident and Emergency Unit (A&E).  In this regard he noted that it had always been envisaged that the development of the Equitable Access Centre (GP led health centre) would reduce attendance at A&E.  The preferred solution was co-location on the Hospital site which it was thought would best contribute to this aim. 

However, as a contingency, planning permission was to be sought to use part of the garden at the Stonebow Unit for the development.   He acknowledged that carers and service users had expressed concern about this proposal and discussions with them were taking place.  He reiterated that the firm preference remained to develop the Centre on the hospital site. 

·                That through a concerted effort, progress was being made in the uptake of the MMR vaccine.

In discussion the following principal points were made:

·                In response to a request the Director agreed to provide a Member with details of the possible sites considered for the GP led health centre.

A number of concerns were expressed about the suitability of the Stonebow Unit site, in particular, for the GP led health centre.  It was also questioned whether the preferred site at the hospital was in fact the best site.

Clarification was sought on the assertion in the report that 43.8% of patients presenting to A&E did not require any follow up treatment and could therefore attend the GP led health centre, making a strong case for co-location.  The Director replied that national studies supported this view.  He agreed to supply a copy.

Asked to clarify when the PCT would be able to confirm whether it could proceed with its preferred site, the Director said that he expected that negotiations would be concluded within two weeks.  He agreed to confirm the outcome to Members of the Committee.

It was proposed that the Committee should request that the planning application for the Stonebow Unit site should be delayed on the understanding that the outcome of negotiations on the hospital site would soon be known.  If it were decided eventually to proceed to seek planning permission for the Stonebow Unit site it was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.