(a)   extensive engagement had taken place with patients, carers and staff;

(b)   the staff engagement period had shown that staff wished to have some influence over the design of the space and be assured that training for new equipment would be in place;

(c)    Patients and carers were happy with the facilities to be provided at Mount Gould and the Modern Matron would be investigating whether it would be feasible to provide a hairdressing service at the site;

(d)   there had been overwhelming support from all internal and external stakeholders who viewed the redesign strategy as offering an improvement in patient care.

(e)   the Memory Service was working with GPs and other health professionals to ensure that early diagnosis of dementia was possible through the correct capturing of data, particularly in primary care,  it was hoped that this would increase early diagnosis rates;

(f)     wards at Mount Gould would never be understaffed and if necessary temporary staff would be drafted in.  The redesign would result in a proactive and responsive team to help provide care away from the clinical setting;

(a)   a personalised care management system that maximised the potential for people to regain and maintain independence through reablement services; 

(b)   a clear and transparent resource allocation system (RAS) based on an objective assessment of need;

(c)    easy access to direct payments to encourage people to exercise maximum independence from the Council and increase their choice and control;

(d)   a clear risk enablement policy that ensured safeguarding processes facilitated informed decision making and risk management without unnecessarily restricting people’s lives.

(e)   independent advice would be provided through advocacy services commissioned by the local authority;

(f)     the reduced spend in Adult Social Care related to clerical support, the introduction of a pre-payment card referred to within the report would remove the need for a large amount of financial services support within the department;

(g)   the disabled facilities grant was administered through the Homes and Communities Department and possible additional funding sources for adaptations were being investigated; 

(h)   funding on payment cards could be used anywhere where a standard debit or credit card was an accepted form of payment.  There were safeguards in place when it came to what funding could be spent on and the department would retain an ability to limit where money could be spent.

(1)   to recommend that Cabinet agrees the Personal Budget Policy and its implementation from the 1 April 2012;

(2)   that the panel is disappointed with the late addition of this policy to the forward plan and that in future late additions to the forward plan are minimised to enable interested parties, including scrutiny panels, to engage with decision makers in advance of such decisions being made.

(a)   the split would leave Plymouth with less students studying to be medical doctors;

(b)   there had been no consultation process with stakeholders before the announcement was made;

(c)    the Hospital Medical Staff Committee and the Local Medical Committee had both raised concerns that there had been no consultation or engagement with stakeholders.  They were concerned that the Plymouth Medical School would not be viable with only 75 medical students.

(1)   to invite the Vice Chancellors of the University of Exeter and the University of Plymouth, along with the Dean of the Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry to a special meeting of the panel to discuss the rationale behind the split;

(2)   to recommend to the overview and scrutiny management board, that the Growth and Prosperity Overview and Scrutiny Panel should also be invited to the above meeting to consider how the split may effect the city’s aspirations for growth.

(a)   Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust (PHNT) was applying for Foundation Trust status as part of its strategic plan but also in line with National direction for all acute NHS providers to become Foundation trusts by 2014;

(b)   the initial feedback from the panel highlighted the insufficient reference to the city plans and ambitions, this was a failure on the part of PHNT to adequately reflect the significance of the partnership and synergy of both organisations’ strategies in language that is uniformly recognised;

(c)    the Trust hoped to engage the panel in a meaningful discussion to ensure that the IBP is supported, aligned with and reflective of the wider City ambitions;

(d)   a revised draft of the IBP would be submitted to the Strategic Health Authority in March, the comments of the panel would be included.

(a)   the group had found that the safeguarding policy and procedures were robust, fit for purpose and an example of national best practice;

(b)   the Safeguarding Adults Team were supported by a multi agency partnership of high quality officers contributing to the safeguarding of adults in the city;

(c)    the group had raised concerns that public awareness of procedures was low and expressed concern that group were unable to interview service users or carer representatives;

(d)   the group felt that the free alerters training provided  by the team and needed to be better publicised amongst the voluntary and community sector;

(e)   members of the Task and Finish Group felt that the Health and Adult Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Panel could provide a more comprehensive oversight of the safeguarding service and should receive regular reports from the safeguarding adults board.

(1)   that the minutes of the meeting of the 25 January 2012 were approved as a correct record;

(2)   to recommend to management board that the constitution is amended to allow minutes to be considered at the start of the meeting.