The appendices will be circulated as a supplementary report.
Minutes:
The Committee considered a joint report of the three Clinical Commissioning Groups in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland (CCGs), and University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (UHL), regarding the planned 12-week public consultation for proposed investment and changes to the acute and maternity services provided by UHL. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 6’, is filed with these minutes as is a supplementary pack containing the appendices to the report.
The Committee was also in receipt of a petition signed by 367 local residents, in the following terms:
“We the undersigned, are concerned about the ongoing refusal by University Hospitals of Leicester to share detailed information about their plans to reconfigure acute hospital services, which include the closure of the Leicester General Hospital as an acute hospital…We call upon the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee to ask for this document to be placed in the public domain now as a condition for future agreement to formal consultation and to consider availing itself of expert advice regarding what the public can reasonably expect and what needs to be in place to ensure there are no grounds for a successful future legal challenge.”
The Committee welcomed to the meeting for this item John Adler, Chief Executive, UHL, Mark Wightman Director of Marketing & Communications, UHL, Andy Williams, Chief Executive, CCGs and Richard Morris, Director of Operations and Corporate Affairs, Leicester City CCG.
Arising from discussions the following points were noted:
(i) The responsibility to consult on major service changes fell upon Clinical Commissioning Groups rather than acute providers. The report and documents which members were considering at this point regarded the consultation process which was proposed, not the substance of the proposed changes.
(ii) Concerns were raised by members that the consultation on the acute and maternity reconfiguration was taking place in isolation without the public knowing what the proposals were for other service areas such as Community Services, and it was questioned whether the Community Services Review could become part of the same consultation. In response it was clarified that the Community Services Review would not be delayed until after the reconfiguration consultation had taken place. The Community Services Review would be taking place at the same time as the consultation on the acute and maternity reconfiguration though the two workstreams were separate and would not be part of the same consultation. The CCGs and UHL were of the view that it was better to progress the acute and maternity reconfiguration rather than delaying until the future of other health services in LLR was more certain. Health services were constantly evolving and their development could not always be perfectly sequenced.
(iii) The CCG clarified that the reason they had brought the consultation document to the Committee at this stage was so that the Committee could help to shape and develop the structure of the consultation. The draft consultation document was currently missing key links, diagrams and financial information and whilst members were in support of the proposed methodology of the consultation, they were reluctant to give assurances regarding the consultation process until the key information was provided. Representatives from UHL and the CCGs were therefore invited to the next meeting of the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee to present the completed consultation document.
(iv) The Pre-consultation Business Case (PCBC) had been updated and would be published before the consultation began. In response to requests for the PCBC to be published sooner it was explained that it could not be released until it had been approved by NHS England. It was suggested that the PCBC could have supplementary briefing documents which provided additional information. The CCGs welcomed suggestions from members for the specific topics of those supplementary documents.
(v) In response to concerns about bed capacity at UHL it was explained that whilst the original reconfiguration plans proposed a reduction in the number of beds, it was now proposed to increase the beds by 139. Further details regarding the bed capacity proposals would be available when the consultation commenced. Although the NHS was intending to prioritise investment in primary care, mental health and other community services this did not mean that the acute sector would be smaller.
(vi) In response to concerns that so far there had been insufficient consultation with service users in the maternity department, members were informed that consultation had taken place with the Maternity Voices Partnership but it was acknowledged that more needed to be done not only to engage with mothers of newborn children, but with patients generally across the acute service.
(vii) Reassurance was given that as part of the consultation, engagement would take place with Parish Councils regarding the proposals.
RESOLVED:
(a) That the details of the 12-week public consultation for proposed investment and changes to the acute and maternity services provided by the University of Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust be noted;
(b) That it be noted that the draft consultation document for the acute and maternity reconfiguration is currently incomplete and missing key information but that the full business case will be published before the public consultation commences.
(c) That it be noted that the Community Services Review will be conducted in parallel with the acute and maternity reconfiguration consultation but that the reconfiguration work will not be dependent on the outcome of the Community Services Review.
(d) That representatives from UHL and the CCGs be invited to a future meeting of the Committee to present a further report regarding the consultation business case when a final version is available.
Supporting documents: