The following declarations of interest were made in accordance with the code of conduct  -

Agreed the minutes of the meeting held on the 21 June 2012 subject to the addition of apologies from Councillor Sue McDonald, Cabinet Member for public health and adult social care.

The Chair referred to the current consultation on scrutiny regulations following the Health and Social Care Act receiving royal assent.

Agreed to delegate the preparation of a response to the Lead Officer in consultation with Councillors Jon Taylor, Mrs Aspinall, Parker and Mrs Bowyer.

The panel will monitor progress on previous resolutions.

The panel were advised that a letter regarding the demerger of the Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry had been drafted and would be sent to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills as a matter of priority.

Agreed to note progress against the Panel’s tracking resolutions.

The panel received a report on proposed changes to Mental Health Recovery Pathways.  David Macaulay, Mental Health Services Manager PCH introduced the consultation document, it was reported that –

(a)   the paper set out proposals to redesign recovery services in the city in order to deliver improved outcomes and efficiencies through a programme of investment in community alternatives and inpatient treatment;

(b)  Plymouth had significantly more Recovery in-patient beds when benchmarked against comparable Mental Health Providers;

(c)   a programme of re-distribution of resources and service re-design would improve the quality of service and release resources for further investment;

(d)  the proposal was aligned with the national direction of travel and national best practice;

(e)  through developing community alternatives to in-patient care and strengthening working arrangements with Supporting People colleagues, 3,000 bed days could avoided;

(f)    the total number of current delayed discharges equated to the capacity of either The Gables or Syrena in-patient units and marginal improvements in the period of time patients spend within these units would yield a significant reduction in the need for in-patient beds;

(g)   the redesign would enhance the ability to meet the complex needs of people within the community;

(h)  it was hoped that the redesign would achieve the following outcomes –

·         A reduction in the need for out of area placements through a more effective model of service delivery and without compromising the ability to meet existing local demands.

·         The delivery of services closer to people’s homes and communities.

·         Services developed in response to identified individual needs.

·         A model developed in collaboration with people who use services and carers as well as with clinical involvement and input.

·         The provision of better clinical outcomes for people.

·         The delivery of significant efficiencies and an opportunity to re-invest in areas that are known deficiencies.

In response to questions from panel members, it was reported that –

(i)    community services would be enhanced to provide support people administering their own medication;

(j)    the patients who would be affected by the redesign were not deemed high risk and were on the pathway to independent living;

(k)  efficiencies savings made as part of the process would be reinvested into mental health services and there was no risk of money leaving the sector;

(l)    changes in the welfare system could lead to increased levels of stress amongst the population, although these issues had been considered the client group affected by the redesign were different as they had a diagnosis of psychosis;

(m)the Primary Care Trust was aware that agencies required help with dealing with instances of severe depression within the population and the demand for swift action for those with that need, commissioners continued to carefully balance the system ensuring that specialist areas were adequately resourced;

(n)  there were a range of services available to help those with learning disabilities and mental health needs gain meaningful employment. Services included ‘Steps’ and some services provided by Plymouth Community Healthcare.  There was a wide range of responses that agencies had available;  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

The panel received the Strategic Alcohol Plan, introduced by Dave Schwartz and supported by Carole Burgoyne, Superintendent Keith Perkins and Paula McGinnis. It was reported that –

Agreed that a Project Initiation Document (PID) would be drafted and submitted to a meeting of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board for approval, the PID would focus on assisting the further development of the strategic and operational plan. The task and finish group would focus on balancing impact of Alcohol on health and maintaining a vibrant night time economy.

Debbie Butcher and Nicky Bray introduced a report and Dementia Action Plan. It was reported that –

In response to questions from members for the panel it was reported that

Agreed to receive a further update on the progress of the plan at a future meeting of the panel.

Agreed the following additions to the panel’s work programme –

(1)  Community Mental Health Care Services, to include a three month update on the recovery pathway consultation;

(2)  a review of the Dementia Strategy Action Plan in 12 months.

Agreed that under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public are excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that  it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in paragraph 3 of Part I of  Schedule 12A of the Act, as amended by the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Craig McArdle and Claire Hodgkins introduced a report on the specification for Local Healthwatch, a consumer champion for health services which was required by the recent Health and Social Care Act (2012).  It was reported that –

Agreed that a quarterly monitoring report would be presented to the panel when the service was commissioned.