Agenda item

The Committee considered a joint report of Leicester and Leicestershire Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs), University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (UHL) and Leicestershire Partnership NHS Trust (LPT) which set out how the local NHS had responded to the spread of the Covid-19 virus. A copy of the report, marked ‘Agenda Item 7’, is filed with these minutes.

 

The Committee welcomed to the meeting for this item Andy Williams, Chief Executive LLR Clinical Commissioning Groups, Rebecca Brown, Acting Chief Executive, UHL, Angela Hillery, Chief Executive of LPT, Rachel Bilsborough, Director - Community Health Services, LPT and John Edwards, Associate Director of Transformation, LPT.

 

Statement from the Director of Public Health for Leicestershire.

 

Prior to the presentation of the NHS report, the Chairman asked the Director of Public Health for Leicestershire to make a statement on the health protection restrictions which were in place in Leicester and parts of Leicestershire. The Director of Public Health informed that a data sharing agreement was now in place with Public Health England and post code level data on positive Covid-19 cases in LLR had now been received. The data indicated that the numbers of Covid-19 cases had stabilised in Leicester City, and in Leicestershire there were less cases of Covid-19 than in the City though the public should not be complacent. The areas of Oadby and Hinckley were higher than the rest of Leicestershire, though not as high as Leicester City. Close working was taking place between Leicester City Council and Leicestershire County Council to manage the spread of the virus and communication strategies and community engagement was in place, particularly in those areas of Leicestershire that were part of the restriction zone.

 

Arising from the statement the following points were discussed:

 

(i)          Members suggested that the communications strategy should take into account the ethnic and cultural diversity of the residents of Leicester and Leicestershire and messages should be disseminated in different languages using paper leaflets as well as digital methods because not everybody had access to social media technology. The Director of Public Health supported this approach and stated that some of the money received from the Government for the extended public health restrictions locally would be used to improve communications to all communities in Leicester and Leicestershire.

 

(ii)         The Public Health England report entitled ‘Preliminary investigation into COVID-19 exceedances in Leicester (June 2020)’ only covered Leicester City and not the parts of Leicestershire that had been included in the restriction zone. The Director of Public Health was not aware of any plans to produce an updated version of the report to include the parts of Leicestershire which had been included in the Leicester restriction zone. Data would be published soon regarding Leicestershire but it would not be broken down into ethnicity.

 

(iii)       Members raised concerns regarding the Test and Trace system, particularly how difficult the home testing kit was to use and the length of time the courier took to pick the sample up. The Director of Public Health acknowledged that the home testing system was not as easy to use as the drive-through system but reassured that the Test and Trace system was improving and 91% of people tested received their results within 24 hours.

 

(iv)       In response to a question regarding the difference between pillar 1 and pillar 2 testing and the importance of each, it was explained that pillar 1 testing was prioritised for clinical staff and gave an outline of the spread of Covid-19 in an area, whereas pillar 2 testing gave a more specific idea of the number of cases and was more likely to pick up younger people that had no symptoms and not been admitted to hospital.

 

NHS response to Covid-19

 

Arising from the NHS presentation the following points were noted:

 

(v)        In dealing with the pandemic the different NHS organisations had worked closely together and with partners in local government. In order to increase local capacity for treating Covid-19 cases a large number of elected medical procedures had been postponed. Some elective cancer treatment had been provided by private providers and this had been funded nationally. The public had adhered to requests not to attend hospital unless it was urgent and as a result footfall had been low and the capacity of the local NHS had never been exceeded.

 

(vi)       There had been difficulties with obtaining equipment particularly as the pandemic impacted on the supply chain elsewhere in the world but these difficulties had been overcome. Each NHS organisation had an Incident Control Centre and the availability of Personal Protective Equipment was monitored and tracked. Reassurance was given that at all times staff were provided with the required equipment and the correct safety procedures were carried out.

 

(vii)      The biggest problem had been a lack of data regarding the spread of Covid-19 locally and it was important for any future outbreaks that more data was received so that the local NHS could prepare appropriately. A data cell had now been put in place which would hopefully improve data sharing. In response to a request from a member the CCGs agreed to give consideration to whether a service recovery dashboard could be published where data from different organisations could be made available in one place for the public to view.

 

(viii)    The work of NHS staff had been commendable and many staff members had gone above and beyond their duties. Care was being taken to monitor the wellbeing of staff and ensure that their mental health was looked after.

 

(ix)       With regards to the mental health of the general public, the mental health urgent care hub had been put in place which provided a direct phone number for mental health support, and the feedback regarding this service had been positive. LPT would provide an update to a future meeting of the Committee regarding the mental health transformation plans.

 

(x)        A member from Rutland raised concerns regarding a lack of public briefings from the NHS.

 

(xi)       A decision had just been made by local NHS management to restart the recovery process in order that non-covid related treatments could be made but care was being taken not to put staff at risk.

 

(xii)      Planning for winter 2020/21 had already begun and was being led by the Chair of West Leicestershire CCG Professor Mayur Lakhani. As part of this planning, consideration was being given to ensure there was sufficient capacity to provide influenza vaccinations.

 

RESOLVED:

 

(a)        That the update from the Director of Public Health regarding the spread of Covid-19 in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland and the Health Protection Restrictions in place in Leicester be noted with concern;

 

(b)        That the update on the Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland NHS response to Covid-19 be noted, and that NHS staff be thanked for their work in responding to the Covid-19 pandemic.

 

(c)        That a further report on the full impact of Covid-19 on the NHS in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland be brought to a future meeting of the Committee.