Agenda item

The Committee considered a joint report and presentation of University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust (UHL) and Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland Clinical Commissioning Groups (LLR CCGs) which enabled consultation on the plans to reconfigure Leicester’s Hospitals known as Building Better Hospitals for the Future. Copies of the report and presentation slides, marked ‘Agenda Item 9’, are filed with these minutes.

The Board was also in receipt of a representation signed by 20 members of the public which submitted that there had been omissions from the consultation document and asked for the Committee to consider the issues which had been omitted. This representation is also filed with the minutes.

The Committee welcomed to the meeting for this item Andy Williams, Chief Executive, LLR CCGs, Rebecca Brown, Acting Chief Executive, UHL, Mark Wightman, Director of Strategy and Communications, UHL, and Richard Morris, Director of Operations and Corporate Affairs, Leicester City CCG.

Arising from discussions the following points were noted:

(i)          Plans for reconfiguring Leicester’s hospitals had originally been proposed in 2007 however those plans had not been carried out due to a lack of finance. The 2007 plans were focused on investing in the acute sector whereas the current plans were more focused towards primary care. Care had been taken that the proposed developments at Leicester’s hospitals were not larger than was necessary and the current reconfiguration plans were significantly less costly than the 2007 plans.

(ii)         A leaflet publicising the consultation was being distributed to all homes in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland so that those residents that did not have access to the internet and social media could still be made aware and take part in the consultation. However, members reported that many houses had not received the leaflet even though the consultation had been ongoing for a few weeks. In response it was confirmed that delivery of the leaflet was still ongoing and distribution companies were being relied upon to carry out the delivery. It was known which postcodes had not yet received the leaflet and assurances were given that those residents would receive notification. Social media responses indicated that many properties had received the leaflet. Local radio stations were also being used to publicise the consultation. The Council of Faiths was being used to communicate with Faith organisations however Rutland was not part of the Council of Faiths therefore a different method was needed to communicate with churches in Rutland.

(iii)       In response to a question as to why individual consultation events were not being held for specific localities such as Rutland, it was explained that as the events were being held virtually due to Covid-19 the place where the participants resided had become less relevant.

(iv)       Moving services from the General Hospital to Leicester Royal Infirmary (LRI) as proposed in the consultation documents could increase congestion at the LRI site however in turn some services would be moved from the LRI to Glenfield Hospital which would reduce congestion at the LRI site. There would be some investment in carparking at LRI and the Glenfield Hospital which would alleviate some of the problems. Members raised concerns that patients that resided on the outskirts of Leicestershire and Rutland would have difficulties travelling to the LRI and Glenfield sites particularly using public transport and this would result in very long journeys. It was submitted that there were parking restrictions in the Glenfield area. It was suggested by a member that the car parks be constructed before the hospital buildings were completed to ensure that the car parks were ready when they needed to be used.

(v)        In response to concerns that the digital triage process would give patients less access to clinicians it was clarified that the digital triage was designed so that there were less steps in the process and patients received a clinical consultation earlier rather than later in the process. It had been found that putting a senior clinical decision maker at the front of the process gave a clearer sense of what the appropriate service was for a patient so that they could be referred into that service earlier. 

(vi)       A positive aspect of moving midwifery services to the LRI was that specialist care services were available on site should mothers experience complications with the birth. Members therefore questioned why some midwifery services were remaining at the General Hospital where specialist services would not be available and patients would still have to be moved to the LRI for complex treatment. In response it was explained that these proposals were about giving mothers choice of where they gave birth. There were many positive aspects of the St Mary’s Birth Centre in Melton Mowbray but due to its location it was not suitable for many mothers across LLR therefore moving midwifery services to the General Hospital made it accessible to more people in LLR whilst retaining the positive aspects of the St Mary’s Centre. The CCGs and UHL were open to reconsidering these proposals depending on the consultation feedback, and during the consultation period focused discussions were taking place regarding the maternity proposals. 

(vii)      In response to concerns that wider community services which the reconfiguration plans relied upon were not ready to deliver what was expected, the CCG acknowledged that not everything was in place and more work was to be done, but it was not realistic to wait until the community services changes had taken place.

(viii)    The monies received as a result of the proposed sale of land at the General Hospital, valued at £20 million, would be in addition to the £450 million allocated by the Government.

(ix)       UHL had calculated that there would be a need for another 139 acute beds by 2023-24 and the reconfiguration plans intended to provide those additional beds. Members were concerned that 139 additional beds would be insufficient and asked for clarification on how the figure had been reached. It was confirmed that projected housing and population growth in LLR had been taken into account in the calculations. It was agreed that after the meeting a briefing would be arranged to fully explain the calculations to members.

(x)        When the reconfiguration plans had been put together consideration had been given to developments which could take place in the future such as robotic surgery and artificial intelligence but events such as the Covid-19 pandemic were very difficult to predict and plan for. The design of the new buildings did incorporate some features to protect against diseases such as Covid-19 for example using motion sensitive light switches rather than those that required touching.

RESOLVED:

That the £450 million investment in Leicester’s hospitals be welcomed and the reconfiguration plans be supported subject to the comments now made.