Agenda item

6.1

The Committee received a presentation, given by Kate Gleave (Sheffield Clinical Commissioning Group (SCCG)) on Reviewing Urgent Primary Care across Sheffield.  Also present for this item were Dr Marion Sloane, Eleanor Nossiter and Alistair Mew (SCCG).

6.2

The presentation covered definitions, a current overview of Urgent Primary Care in Sheffield, details of the opening hours of the various facilities, key issues, adjusting investment to meet patient need, what it was desired to achieve, the process, development of options and plans for consultation.

6.3

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

·                There was some flexibility in the approach to an Urgent Care Strategy, but the main feature was ensuring that it worked for Sheffield.

·                All stakeholders would be included in the consultation process.

·                Those involved in the development of the Urgent Care Strategy were very aware of issues such as the reduction in inequalities, the need to stop people who required Primary Care going to A&E and making the Strategy sustainable.

·                With regard to the participation in consultation of those who didn’t speak English, a consistent approach with set questions was to be used, together with face to face contact with members of the Roma and Asian communities.  Interpreters would also be used in this regard.

·                It was planned to consult over the period of June to September and, even though this was over the Summer holiday period, officers were confident that a targeted approach would reach the relevant people.  It should be noted that there were timescales to work to in developing the revised options for Urgent Primary Care and also contract related issues.  It was also preferable to consult during the proposed time as, in the period September to March, providers needed to focus on care delivery.

·                The language and communication needs involved in the consultation were recognised.

·                The decision as to what was urgent would be arrived at after discussion between the patient and the relevant professional.  How this contact would be managed would come out in the options.

·                The results of the consultation would be shared for comment.

·                Consideration would be given to the further involvement of the Police and Fire and Rescue Service in the engagement process, to inform the development of options.

·                There was a long list of options which were being worked through with providers, but it was necessary to await the outcome of the public engagement process.  No decisions had been made yet, but it was likely that a model of care would be developed, with the options focusing on the types of service to be delivered. 

·                In relation to service entry points, consideration would have to be given as to whether services could be linked together or provided at one central facility.

·                The options would be brought to this Committee when they had been developed, with one of the aims making it more simple as to where people should go to access Urgent Care services.

·                It was hoped that health care records could be shared, so that patients would not have to continually repeat their health histories.

·                Professionals would engage with patients in relation to care planning.

·                Whilst active support and recovery was outside the scope of the review, there was an interdependency in that it impacted upon Urgent Care responses.

·                Officers were working with independent people and organisations such as Healthwatch in relation to the conduct of the consultation process.

·                A wide range of individuals would be included in the consultation, including those living on travellers sites.

·                The way in which other areas dealt with Urgent Care had been looked at, but it was important that the review had a local focus.

·                Officers had had their first meeting with a wide range of providers, including GPs and local representatives, on the previous day.

·                It was important to get people to the right service and how this was managed needed to be addressed.  It was recognised that people were accessing different services as they were unable to get appointments with their GP.  There was a need to manage more appointments during the day and when the options had been shared, it would be possible to have a more constructive conversation on appointment waiting times.

·                In relation to timescales, the SCCG needed to make a decision on the options for consultation on 25^th May 2017, so that the consultation could take place between June and September 2017.  There would then be a period of reflection, with the options being presented to the Governing Body in October 2017.  Implementation of the options would then be considered and a period of 3 to 12 months’ notice may be needed for this if providers needed to make any changes.

·                In relation to GP access, it was recognised that a more urgent response was required.

·                Coverage of neighbourhood services was worked out between the local GP practices.

·                It was not always necessary for someone to see a GP and it may be that someone such as a pharmacist may be a more appropriate point of contact.  In some cases, practice care navigators were used and in these instances the patient would be directed to the appropriate service.

6.4

In summing up, the Chair (Councillor Pat Midgley) stated that the Committee wanted to work with the SCCG in the development of the review of Urgent Primary Care, adding that further areas for consideration could include the provision of some night duty service in the neighbourhoods, engagement with a wide range of people in the consultation process, the addressing of delays in obtaining GP appointments, inequalities, particularly in relation to those who did not speak English, and the inclusion of projects working alongside public health in the process.

6.5

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)       thanks those attending for their contribution to the meeting;

(b)       notes the contents of the presentation, Members’ comments and the responses to questions; and

(c)        requests that an update on progress on the development of the Urgent Primary Care Review be circulated to Committee Members following the end of the consultation period in September 2017.