Agenda item

7.1

The Committee received a joint report of Greg Fell (Director of Public Health) and Peter Moore (Director of Integration and Strategy, Sheffield Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG)) which was supported by a presentation which intended to introduce the Committee to the Sheffield Local Sustainability and Transformation Plan (STP), its purpose, key messages and next steps.

7.2

The presentation was given jointly by Greg Fell and Peter Moore and covered how the Sheffield Place Based Plan had been developed, which had preceded the development of the South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw STP, the Sheffield Vision, the reasons why Sheffield had to change, what was different about the Sheffield Place Based Plan and what actions were going to be taken, governance, timescales to March 2017, communications and engagement and risks.

7.3

At this point, the Chair (Councillor Pat Midgley), invited Mike Simpkin (Sheffield Save Our NHS) to ask his written public questions, which related to the examination of the South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw STP and the need to ensure that the Sheffield Place Based Plan caused no detriment to health care services, that the financial strategy was acceptable and secure and that delivery of the plan would not be affected by the current or further rounds of so-called efficiency savings.  The Chair indicated that these points would most likely be covered in the discussion to follow, but Mr Simpkin would be allowed to respond afterwards.

7.4

Members made various comments and asked a number of questions, to which responses were provided as follows:-

·                In relation to public engagement, officers had met with Healthwatch representatives the previous week to scope out a Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) engagement event on the 8^th December and the possibility of the Health and Wellbeing  Board being held across local communities was also discussed.   In addition, there was a proactive communications strategy using a range of media. 

·                Co-production was being used at a strategic and service delivery level and at a local level using the energy of experts who were delivering or receiving services.

·                The timeline for production of the STP had been imposed by NHS England and was very challenging, with the cost of this being full engagement in the Plan as it was being developed.  It was highlighted that there was still a requirement to consult in the case of any significant service change, as was happening currently in South Yorkshire in relation to stroke care.

·                There was no mention of mental health in the ‘What are we going to do?’ section of the presentation, as the City already had a strategy covering this.

·                It was important that all stakeholders in Sheffield were involved in determining the desired outcomes, so that the extent to which they were locally owned and not imposed was increased.

·                The STP recognised that employment was a major contributor to good health, with employment and health being firmly embedded in it.  In this respect, Sheffield was ahead of other parts of the country.

·                In relation to the care of older people, work was being undertaken with the smaller organisations involved, but it should be noted that the homecare market was funded at a level that only national organisations could meet, so there was a need to rebalance investments.

·                The majority of resources were spent on high cost interventions and the aim was to bring spending lower down the scale, to the third sector and the public, to promote prevention rather than treatment.

·                In relation to reducing smoking, it was intended to scale-up interventions to reduce smoking prevalence, especially in high risk groups.

·                The Sheffield Place Based Plan was intended to set a long term direction of travel rather than be highly specific about certain services or interventions.  As such, it was quite flexible.  The aim was to get organisational leaders together and agreeing and to sell the Plan to the leaders of the governance structures.  It would take 3/4 years to get to a sustainable position.

7.5

In response, Mike Simpkin highlighted the need to work differently and asked about the point of no return for a financially costed deliverable plan and whether the regional plan was no more than a sum of the place parts.  In response to this, Greg Fell referred to the situation in West Yorkshire where it was understood that the regional plan had been rejected by individual Council Leaders.   Peter Moore highlighted the importance of the right things being said in the Sheffield Place Based Plan and making sure that everything in it happened.

7.6

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)       thanks Greg Fell and Peter Moore for their contribution to the meeting;

(b)       notes the contents of the report, presentation and the responses to questions; and

(c)        notes the concerns expressed by some Committee Members at the late circulation of the final version of the presentation and, in the light of these concerns, requests that consideration be given to the holding of a Special Committee meeting to allow further scrutiny of the Sheffield Place Based Plan and agrees that the Chair (Councillor Pat Midgley), in conjunction with the Policy and Improvement Officer, considers the best way forward once the timetable for the Plan was known.