Agenda item

3.1

Public Question Regarding Social Prescribing

Nicola Smith asked what the plans were in Sheffield as regards the introduction of social prescribing, so that people were best able to access support to stay well and have a lasting recovery if they had been unwell.

Dr St John Livesey responded that social prescribing was something which had to be made to work well and there was a good example of social prescribing working successfully in Rotherham. Third sector organisations were involved, through organisations such as Voluntary Action Sheffield. The Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and City Council lead on this matter was Peter Moore. This was part of the wider ‘People Keeping Well’ workstream and improving the co-ordination of referrals by primary care to services provided by the voluntary and community sector. 

Councillor Mazher Iqbal stated that Voluntary Action Sheffield had hosted a Social Prescribing summit in 2015 and the Council was working with the CCG to produce a framework. A number of third sector organisations were part of the community wellbeing programme and it was acknowledged that there was need to improve the co-ordination of services.

Councillor Mary Lea said that social prescribing could be used to address the particular needs of individuals.

3.2

Public Questions Concerning People With Learning Disabilities and Employment

Adam Butcher asked how the Board would make sure that all members of the Learning Disabilities community and disabled community were able to gain employment, especially after a period out of the jobs market and how might they be supported with Work Capability Assessments undertaken by the Department for Work and Pensions.

Councillor Julie Dore stated that, in response to the Work Capability Assessments, local councillors did what they could to signpost people to help and the appeals process, in those cases when an individual believed an incorrect decision had been made or a decision was unfair.

Councillor Mazher Iqbal stated that the Council funded the Citizens’ Advice Bureau, an organisation which collected data and carried out work in relation to benefits sanctions. There had also been a debate in Parliament concerning Work Capability Assessments in February 2016. Work was being done across Cabinet portfolios in relation to the re-design of support for people who had been away from the jobs market for a long period.

3.3

Public Questions Concerning the Better Care Fund

Mike Simpkin asked several questions relating to the following report submitted to the Board: Sheffield’s 2016/17 Draft Better Care Fund Submission, as follows:

1)  In reference to governance: How does the Board think its responsibilities and decision-making will be affected by the increasing number of sub-regional structures appearing in the NHS, including the Working Together Partnerships, the new Testbed, and the Sustainability and Transformation Footprint for South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw? 

2)  What is the meaning of paragraph 8.1 in the Better Care Fund Draft Submission (p.27)?  What is the accountability of the new Sheffield Transformation Board and to whom will it report?

3)  Mr Simpkin stated that in reference to Para 4.2 of the report concerning a focus on those for whom there is the greatest opportunity for health outcomes improvement, there had been increasing concern that commissioning solely for health outcomes could be to the disadvantage of people with long term conditions for whom maintenance may be a more realistic ambition than improvement. He asked whether the Board was satisfied that the desired outcomes of the Better Care Fund reflect the full spectrum of patient need rather than organisational priorities and if they had been formulated with the full involvement of patients and service users.

Maddy Ruff stated that as part of planning and delivery of services, a broader footprint was being examined. The wider footprint of South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw had been covered by the Working Together Programme, although the footprint for the new Transformational Programme was not exactly the same. It was still relatively early in the process and the CCG and City Council were working with NHS England with regard to how plans would fit with the requirements of the Health and Wellbeing Board. Each CCG would produce a plan and the NHS and Sheffield City Council would work together, with that work being brought together through the Transforming Sheffield Programme Board. The governance arrangements relating to the Programme Board were being worked upon. It was positive that the commissioner and provider organisations were coming together to plan services.

Alison Knowles added that the basis of the footprint for NHS planning was the CCG, which was the accountable organisation for health services and a wider planning footprint was being looked at because of the savings required by the NHS to 2020. It was appropriate to have local planning in relation to primary care services, whereas, for some specialist services, such as stroke services, a wider planning footprint might be applicable. 

Judy Robinson stated that there were good examples of working with the voluntary, community and faith sector.

Councillor Julie Dore stated that, in contrast to Manchester, Sheffield City Region chose not to deliver health and social care for the City region as a whole. The Health and Wellbeing Board would continue to look at its remit and focus in the light of emerging changes, including legislative change. With regards to Mr Simpkin’s final question concerning patient need, Councillor Dore stated that the Board would consider that matter when it considered the 2016/17 Draft Better Care Fund Submission later in the meeting.   

3.4

Public Questions Concerning Adult Autism

Roger Guymer submitted questions in writing to the Board regarding the national strategy on adult autism as it affects Sheffield, as follows:

“1. I note that under Outcome 3 of your Sheffield's “Joint Health and Wellbeing Strategy - Report on Progress and Actions - September 2015”, Health Needs Assessments are being undertaken or updated in relation to the following groups in Sheffield:

• Mental Health

• Learning Disabilities

• Carers

• Homeless

• Roma Slovak

Whilst I accept that attention to the needs of these various groups is commendable and highly desirable, why is there no mention of autism in Sheffield's Joint Health and Wellbeing Board's Strategy document or in the Board's Report on Progress and Actions of September 2015 (or, for that matter, in the Director of Public Health's 2015 report) when Sheffield's Joint Strategic Needs Assessment of 2013 says that “There are as many as 6,000 adults with Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD) locally and we know this is the fastest growing area of ‘primary need’ in Sheffield” ? And when the government's 2015 StatutoryGuidance for Local Authorities and NHS organisations says that “Health and Well-beingBoards have a crucial role to play in overseeing implementation of the Adult Autism Strategy” and that “the Health and Well-being Board is central to ensuring the needs of people with autism are addressed locally”?”

2. Why does Sheffield currently have no Autism Partnership Board when Sheffield does have a Learning Disability Partnership Board and a Mental Health Partnership Board, and when the Department of Health March 2015 Autism Statutory Guidance says that “Localpartners should already have a local autism partnership board in place, which bringstogether different organisations, services and stakeholders and adults with autism and theirfamilies to set a clear direction for improved services. Autism partnership boards haveproved to be a highly effective means for stakeholders to shape and monitor local delivery ofthe strategy and statutory guidance. It is therefore essential for their partnership

arrangements to be established in areas where they are not currently”?

Councillor Julie Dore stated that responses would be given in writing to Mr Guymer, who was not in attendance at the meeting.