(a)   that plans and strategies of both the CCG and HWB sought to reconfirm that people were at the centre of services;

(b)  the current economic climate was forcing all public sector organisations to look at the system in a different way;

(c)   the CCG was the largest in the country, had clear clinical leadership and was on course to be established in April;

(d)  the HWB had developed a clear vision of what it wanted to see for all the people of Plymouth, supported and framed by its own definition of health and wellbeing. The board’s vision is to see “Happy Healthy Aspiring Communities” throughout Plymouth;

(e)  the developing Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy (JHWBS) provided three core strategic approaches which were to ensure shared ownership of the sustainability agenda, ensure that systems were developed and used that made the best use of resources and to move the focus of work to the promotion of health and wellbeing. The three core strategic approaches were aligned with those of the CCG;

(f)    the HWBwould evidence alignment with the core approaches and constantly ensure that resources were focused toward prevention and hence the promotion of health and wellbeing;

(g)   in developing their definition of health and wellbeing the HWB had used four cornerstones Body, Mind, Heart and Spirit.  The balance between these ingredients was thought to be central to an individual’s health and wellbeing and framed the recommendations of the Marmott Report 2010;

(h)  Plymouth’s Shadow Health and Wellbeing Board would shortly launch a public consultation about how best to improve health and wellbeing across the City.  The consultation would not be on a finished strategy, but  a conversation with the City about health and wellbeing.

(i)    it was difficult to see how the system would run in the future, there would be a big role for voluntary and community sector, community interest companies and social enterprise. The alignment of existing providers was critical;

(j)    annual performance measurements were a problem in the NHS and that performance needed to measured over  5-10 years. An improved life expectancy measurement would indicate that plans were working;

(k)  in its current form the NHS  was unsustainable,  to ensure a sustainable service people must be prevented from being patients;

(l)    there was a need to create a value based system where informed decisions were made. Currently the  information nor the technical expertise existed to deal with the current problems in the NHS;

(m)the new system would require huge culture change and staff would need to be prepared to make that journey. The CCG was now fully staffed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 61.

(a)   the JCP was a single multi-agency partnership spanning a range of Health and Social Care Services. It was responsible for ensuring that there was a coordinated and consistent approach to commissioning services on behalf of partner agencies in Plymouth;

(b)  the JCP will deliver the Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy and address the emerging themes from the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment;

(c)   services could only remain sustainable if delivered in partnership, the JCP challenges organisation boundaries and current commissioning strategies.

(d)  although the JCP predates the co-operative council, the co-operative values are built into the partnership; specifically around choice and control, early intervention and prevention, social value and universal services, although a cleared statement of intents was required around market management;

(e)  the JCP was receiving assistance on developing a market position statement from Oxford Brookes University.  The Adult Social Care market position statement was already in place.

(1)  that the panel should review how to add value to the delivery plans of the JCP;

(2)  to recommend that Healthwatch work more closely with the Adult Social Care Quality Assurance and Improvement Team;

(3)  an updated list of the members of the JCP is circulated to panel members;

(4)  that details of housing services delivery plans are provided to the panel.

(1)  note the Francis Report’s recommendations with regard to scrutiny and the actions which the panel has taken and could take in the future to support them;

(2)  review the response of local health services to the recommendations of the Francis report;

(3)  recommend to City Council the delegation of all health scrutiny functions (other than referral of matters to the Secretary of State for Health) to a Health Scrutiny Panel;