Agenda item

6.1

The Committee received a report of the Director of Strategy and Integration, Sheffield Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), which outlined the process undertaken to develop the Urgent Primary Care options, which were to be taken out to formal public consultation, and described the options for service reconfiguration which were to be included in the consultation.  Attached to the report was the Urgent Care Strategy Review Engagement report, the draft Consultation Plan and a Neighbourhood map which provided details of the locations of GP practices in the City.

6.2

In attendance for this item were Peter Moore (Director of Strategy and Integration, Sheffield CCG), Kate Gleave (Deputy Director of Strategy and Integration, Sheffield CCG) and Eleanor Nossiter (Sheffield CCG).

6.3

The report was supported by a presentation given by Kate Gleave, which covered the current system pathway, the revised system pathway, options within the consultation, what this meant for Sheffield patients and what the benefits were for Sheffield patients.

6.4

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

·                The consultation would include a clear map of practices in the neighbourhoods, to give people an idea of how far they may need to travel and assessments had been made of travel times to get to these centres.  There were also estate and workforce considerations to bear in mind when considering these locations.

·                It was felt that GPs didn’t need to see all patients and, in order to relieve the pressure on practices, practices would work together to see patients within their local area (neighbourhoods), rather than them necessarily being seen in their own practice.  Patients with minor illness or injuries who attended Accident and Emergency Departments would be directed to the Urgent Treatment Centre (UTC).  It was important to make primary care consistent and offer the right level of support.

·                By improving local access, it was hoped that patients would choose to be seen in the neighbourhoods, ideally on the same day.  The UTC at the Northern General Hospital was there as a national requirement and people seemed to like using it.

·                The aim was to simplify the services available, ensure patients could access urgent care quickly, take out duplication from the system and invest in more effective primary care.  An out of hours GP service would still be provided from the Northern General Hospital site.

·                Whilst people with mental health needs had been covered in the engagement report, this would be revisited to ensure the significant representation of this group.

·                The advantage of localisation was that those working locally would know the area and its people and could direct them appropriately.

·                Whilst initial access to urgent care for the majority of people would be by telephone, access may be tailored for different neighbourhoods and groups of people, eg a drop in service may be needed for the homeless, and consideration was also being given to the use of skype and email.

·                It would still be possible for people to consult their pharmacy or optician if they so wished.  However, technological issues prevented these services from booking appointments for patients at their local GP service or UTC.

·                Engagement with walk-in centre patients in the consultation process was progressing.

·                A programme of work was being undertaken on improving mental health care to cut down on waiting times, but incidents relating to mental health tended to be more of an emergency situation rather than relating to urgent care.

·                The implementation of neighbourhood solutions was designed to address situations where GPs could not manage their workloads.

·                Full implementation was expected by 2020 and additional organisation may be required to provide services in the interim.

·                The aim was for those patients requiring urgent care to be seen at a GP practice or in a neighbourhood setting.  In the evenings and at weekends, four neighbourhood sites would be available across the City.  Alternatively patients could attend the UTC. The process was designed to help patients get an early appointment and the appropriate care.

·                Discussions were taking place with regard to communicating the new proposals to as many people as possible during the consultation and communications staff at the CCG would be undertaking work in the neighbourhoods.

·                Whilst it was acknowledged that car parking at hospitals could be seen as a barrier, the aim was for people to be seen in the community. 

·                The report just outlined the proposals, as officers wanted to keep things simple, but it did include all the options.  The draft document was to be considered by a Committee of the CCG the following week, with the consultation to start after that.  Members of the Committee would be able to see the document at the same time at which it was released publicly. 

·                The reason why there was no option 3 in the presentation was that originally, six options were considered and three were identified from these.  In the final consultation document, they would be designated as options 1, 2 and 3.

·                The Royal Hallamshire Hospital had been considered as a location for the UTC, but this had not been progressed as it was not feasible.

·                Patient care was a fundamental driver behind these proposals, with the intention being to avoid duplication and invest in those patients who had more complex conditions.

·                It was important to get core standards in terms of telephone calls and appointments, and it was hoped to get these arrangements in place quickly.

·                The contracts with hospitals and the National GP Contract had a different performance management regime, but it was important to get a clear, consistent offer to the public.

·                Officers would receive weekly and monthly reports on the responses to the consultation and it was hoped to have a good flavour of the outcome by the end of October 2017.

6.5

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

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

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

(c)        requests that:-

(i)        Members’ concerns regarding neighbourhood, inequality, mental health and language issues be taken into consideration in carrying out the consultation;

(ii)       Members be kept informed of progress with the consultation process so that they could participate in events such as discussion groups; and

(iii)      an update report on the consultation be presented to the Committee at its November 2017 meeting.