Questions to be asked by Members of the County Council of the Leader of the Council, a Cabinet Member, or a Chairman of a non-Scrutiny Committee. The question will be answered by the relevant Member and the Member asking the question may then ask a follow up question which will also be answered
Minutes:
Mrs S. Peaple asked the following question of the Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing whose reply is set out below the question:-
Question
“The recent Keogh report, which David Cameron described as excellent, identified poor communication with patients as a factor in the delivery of services by Burton Hospitals NHS Trust.
(i) What steps is the Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing taking to monitor the necessary improvements in patient communication in the hospitals run by the Trust?
(ii) Does the Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing have confidence in the management of the Burton Hospitals Trust, since poor patient communication was a failing identified at Stafford Hospital and should therefore have already been a key area for all NHS Trusts to be monitoring?
(iii) Two of the Keogh Report's findings relating to Burton Hospitals Trust relate to a practise of imposing 12 hour shifts and leaving junior doctors unsupported. Although the first was stopped once identified by the Keogh inspection team, what steps has the Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing taken to identify how far the support for junior doctors has increased?
(iv) Since the Trust itself concludes 'A review of staffing needs to take place to ensure there are enough Nurses out of hours' ., what confidence does the Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing have that Burton Hospitals Trust will be able to fund a more appropriate system in line with the actions agreed following the visit by the Keogh inspectors?
(v) Does the Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing agree that it is right that the three governors of Burton NHS Trust representing Lichfield and Tamworth all live in Lichfield?”
Reply
“With regard to the Keogh Review generally, it is clear that changes need to be made not just at Burton, but in our whole approach to health and social care. Staffordshire’s Health and Wellbeing strategy clearly sets out our plans with partners to create a sustainable and high quality NHS which delivers care in hospitals and increasingly in our communities.
Specifically on Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, in all areas of care it is essential to communicate well with patients and it will be the role of Staffordshire’s Healthwatch and Engaging Communities Staffordshire to ensure the voice of residents is heard and acted on.
Our then health select committee acted swiftly ahead of this review when concerns were raised about mortality rates and called Chief Executive Helen Ashley to our health select committee. The chief executive certainly gave a candid account of the challenges the trust faced and I note in the review the trust was praised for its co-operation.
Issues such as shift patterns and staffing is a matter for management and clinicians, but clearly nobody benefits from working very long hours and I am pleased this was stopped immediately once identified by the review team. Support for junior doctors is also a matter for the trust.
I understand the trust has recently recruited more nurses which is encouraging and will hopefully address points raised in the review.
In terms of governors, the county council has no powers to insist who is appointed. I am sure if any Tamworth resident wishes to apply when a vacancy occurs they will be considered on their merits like everyone else.”
Supplementary Question
Can the Cabinet Member specifically answer the questions that I raised, in particular with regard to what he is going to be doing on these issues? In a number of instances in his response he said that “that’s a matter for the Trust. With the greatest of respect I would like to remind him of this Council’s responsibility as the Health Watchdog that we make sure that the Trusts are behaving as they should.
Reply
I will explain specifically where I stand on each of the five questions:
We set up the independent organisation called “Engaging Communities Staffordshire” which is responsible for getting feedback from patients. This feedback will be fed into the Health and Wellbeing Board, of which I am co-chairman, and it will be discussed on a regular basis.
When a problem arises, as in the case of Burton Hospital, it first comes down to the Health Select Committee who can challenge those responsible on the issues raised such as asking the Chief Executive of the Trust to come and respond to the Committees questions. If the Committee were also to ask me to attend their meeting to give my views on the issues and the Trust’s responses, I would be happy to do so. I feel that it is my duty to improve the health and wellbeing of everybody here in Staffordshire and I firmly believe that I have a lead role in moving this authority and healthcare in Staffordshire from where it is at the moment, which is primarily hospital based, to prevention and community based treatment so that people lead healthier lives and are less likely to get ill.
As far as the number of nurses is concerned, this is a matter for the Trust. If we think that the Trust’s policy on staffing levels is wrong then we have the power to scrutinise their policy. With regard to Junior Doctors, there is an independent committee, chaired by Julia Bridgewater, which is responsible for looking how these trainees/junior doctors are looked after.
Mrs S. Peaple asked the following question of the Cabinet Member for Learning and Skills whose reply is set out below the question:-
Question
“Can the Cabinet Member explain why the decision was taken to abandon the consultation on parent's contributions to the cost of travel to school before the published closing date, thus potentially depriving residents of the opportunity of giving their views on the issue?”
Reply
“The consultation was an opportunity to gather views on proposals for parents to share the cost of discretionary school travel. This was a genuine consultation and having considered the wealth of responses we received from head teachers, governors and parents and the many valid points that they had raised, I decided to close the consultation early after 20 working days.
It was very clear from the responses that there were concerns over the impact the proposals could have in particular on rural schools and those living in rural areas. Whilst we have limited resources and need to ensure we spend taxpayer’s money wisely, we need to balance this with the views of local people and ensure that the proposals would not have a significant impact on parents and our unique community of schools in Staffordshire. We are a 'listening council' and we take the views of local people into account which resulted in us looking again at the proposals. I therefore decided to stop the consultation early to prevent any further uncertainty and to ensure schools, pupils and parents were informed of the outcome before the end of the school year.”
Supplementary Question
Does the Cabinet Member not agree that this was an abuse of process in that people who may have legitimately been planning to respond to the consultation, possibly in favour, were deprived of their voice? In addition, I would be very interested to know how much money, including staff time, was effectively wasted in this improperly constituted consultation?
Reply
You could suggest that the consultation process being cut short limited the potential for some people to contribute, and you are quite right in that we did get a number of people contributing who were in full support of the proposed changes. However, these were a small minority and the bulk of responses were from people very much engaged in the issue, not those that were solely potentially going to have to contribute to the transport costs, but also those from schools who thought that they would be impacted by the proposed policy.
I think that the alternative of continuing, just for the sake of process, was not in the interest of those schools, parents and children. An early decision that allowed them all to move on and essentially plan for next year in confidence ahead of the school holidays was the right thing to do. Since then we have received nothing but thanks for making that decision early. I haven’t received one representation from someone saying that they felt that their voice had been removed.
I will come back to you with the material costs of the consultation as we have already gathered that information for Press Releases.
Mrs C. Atkins asked the following question of the Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing whose reply is set out below the question:-
Question
“What plans has the County Council for the Kniveden Garden Project in Leek?”
Reply
“The ‘Kniveden Garden Project’ uses gardening and other activities to support people in mental health recovery to ‘enable people to regain self-esteem and confidence’.
The project is run by the Occupational Therapy Service from North Staffordshire Combined Health Care NHS Trust, commonly referred to as Combined Health Care. The project is based in a building on the site of the Springhill Learning Disability Care Home on the outskirts of Leek. In 2001 the Council and Combined Health Care entered into a 10 year agreement for Combined Health Care to use part of the Springhill site. This agreement has rolled over since 2011.
As the ‘Kniveden Gardening Project’ is not a County Council service, the Council has no plans for this service. However, the closure of the Springhill Care Home was agreed in 2007, as part of the Changing Lives project of the then Labour Administration. Both the public and the staff were consulted at the time. There are only 8 remaining residents in the Springhill Care Home and many of these people have places to move to in the near future.
Combined Health Care has known since 2007 of the plan to close Springhill Care Home. The Council still plans to close the Springhill Care Home. Combined Health Care is aware that they will need to find an alternative site in the near future. Clearly, when the time does come for Combined Health Care to vacate the site, the Council will endeavour to see that there is as little disruption to the project as is possible in the circumstances.”
Supplementary Question
Of course I recognise that the County Council does not run the service but it does own the site and there has been an agreement back to 2001. Since 2007 there has been a huge amount of uncertainty. What amazes me is that, given the plan is for a Dementia Centre of Excellence to be on that site, the Garden Project is not seen as a valuable part of that proposal. The County Council doesn’t run the service but we hear a lot from Members about partnership working so why isn’t there a continuing partnership with Combined Health Care to ensure that users of the proposed new facilities on that site can also make use of the Garden Project, which has been highly successful and encompasses about 100 users per week, helping to keep them out of acute mental health care.
Reply
First of all, I think that Members need to be aware of the make-up of this site. There are two sites, side by side. On one side is the Springhill Care Home site upon which this Garden Project is based. On the other side is the Kniveden site which used to accommodate an old people’s care home. The two sides of the site are separated by a public footpath. The site that is being looked at for the Dementia Centre of Excellence is the Kniveden site, not the Springhill side. Therefore, as part of the Garden Project is concerned, the Dementia Centre of Excellence will not affect the Project.
As far as the Garden project is concerned, I would reiterate that the decision was taken back in 2007 to close the Springhill Care Home. At the point when the Home closes, the Combined Health Care will need to relocate the Garden Project elsewhere. I am sure that Members will understand that keeping the site with just the Garden Project on it would not be a good use of the Council’s money.
Mrs C. Atkins asked the following question of the Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing whose reply is set out below the question:-
Question
“Who has been consulted and informed about the County Council’s plans for the Kniveden Garden Project?”
Reply
“I refer you to the response I gave to your first question.”
Supplementary Question
Given the lack of consultation with the people involved in the Project, do you think it appropriate that County Council employees should wander onto the Garden Project with clipboards without first checking in with the manager of the Project, upsetting the clients who use the Project. And can you ensure that this does not happen again and give the staff and clients of the project the respect they deserve?
Reply
The only information we have got would indicate that those people who came onto the site were meter readers, not County Council employees.
Ms C. Wood asked the following question of the Leader of the Council whose reply is set out below the question:-
Question
“Can the Leader give a guarantee that there will be no closures to Household Waste Recycling Centres under the new Site Leasing Arrangements?”
Reply
“The new Household Waste Recycling Centre Contract becomes operational on 19th August. FCC are the new contractors. We have commissioned an improved level of service at an annual saving of £240,000 compared to the previous contract, which in practical terms for residents means that the sites will be open for longer and will accept even more materials, including carpets, mattresses and hard plastics. Under the new service there are no planned site closures. New Environment Agency rules require that the operators of the service must hold the Waste Management License and lease for each site. This has meant that all existing arrangements for leases on the sites have to be transferred from the County to FCC. This will not adversely affect the practical operation of the service.”