Agenda item

Intermediate Minor Oral Surgery


The Committee considered two reports; one from the Local Dental Committee (LDC) which raised concerns about the discontinued procurement process for Intermediate Minor Oral Surgery (IMOS) in Leicestershire, and one from the Integrated Care Board which responded to those concerns. Copies of the two reports, marked ‘Agenda Item 10, are filed with these minutes.


The Committee welcomed to the meeting for this item Hanif Moti and Sarah May from the Local Dental Committee, Ket Chudasama, Deputy Chief Strategy and Planning Officer, Integrated Care Board, Dianne Wells, Senior Commissioning Manager, Pharmacy, Optometry and Dental, and Liz Gundel, Deputy Head of Primary Care – East Midlands Primary Care Team.


In presenting the Local Dental Committee report Hanif Moti emphasised the following points:


(i)           With regards to the engagement and consultation process that was undertaken to seek views and feedback from patients, public, dental profession and key stakeholders, the Local Dental Committee felt that the number of responses received was insufficient. Although 5,000 patients across the East Midlands who had received treatment under the IMOS pathway were contacted to complete the online engagement survey only 20 patients responded. There were only 29 responses from the public and 17 responses from dental professionals. Hanif Moti submitted that the consultation process was flawed and it should not have been possible to draw any meaningful conclusions from it.


(ii)         There were currently 10 oral surgery sites in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland but in the future there would only be four and patients would be expected to travel to the sites which was unreasonable for those suffering from dental pain etc.


(iii)        Currently providers were paid £174 for a typical case, a fee which had remained unchanged since 2012. This would be reduced to £141.42 under the new contracts. The fee was already lower than other areas of the country and the reduction would make the payment even less competitive.


(iv)       In the view of the Local Dental Committee the only problem with the current service was the lack of sedation facilities at the sites in Leicestershire.


(v)         In summary Hanif Moti submitted that the whole process needed reconsideration before the procurement process took place.


Arising from discussions the following points were noted:


(i)           Members expressed concerns that not one bidder in Leicestershire had been successful under the procurement process and questioned whether the process and the relevant documents were too complicated. In response reassurance was given that lessons had been learnt from the first procurement exercise and would be incorporated into the re-procurement process. The documentation would be reviewed and revised. The people writing the bids were clinical experts not procurement experts therefore they required help. Engagement and education events were taking place to support contractors to enable their bids to be more successful.


(ii)         No dates had been set for when the re-procurement would take place and it would not be within the next month.


(iii)        Most of the services were previously delivered in the Leicestershire east area though it was questioned whether this was just where dentists referred patients to or whether it was where patients actually wanted to go.


(iv)       Members shared the concerns of the Local Dental Committee regarding the remuneration for the service.


(v)         A member questioned whether any of the current providers had bid under the 2022/23 procurement process and noted that if they did and were not successful this raised questions about whether the current service was adequate. In response reassurance was given that there were no clinical concerns about the current service.




(i)           That the concerns raised by the Local Dental Committee and the responses from the Integrated Care Board to those concerns be noted;


(ii)         That the Integrated Care Board be requested to provide a further report to a future meeting of the Committee regarding the re-procurement process.

Supporting documents: