Agenda item

5.1

The Committee received a report of the Director of Commissioning, Inclusion and Learning, which provided an outline and described key areas and objectives of the Sheffield Mental Health Transformation Programme, which was a collaborative programme of work that had been jointly developed and was being jointly delivered by Sheffield City Council (SCC), NHS Sheffield Clinical Commissioning Group (SCCG) and Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust (SHSC).

5.2

Present for this item were Dawn Walton (Director of Commissioning, Inclusion and Learning), Jim Millns (Deputy Director of Mental Health Transformation and Integration, SCCG, SHSC and SCC), Dr Mike Hunter (Medical Director, SHSC) and Clive Clarke (Deputy Chief Executive, SHSC).

5.3

The report was supported by a presentation given by Jim Millns which provided some context, described the story so far including achievements, provided a Programme overview and set out a number of points for Members’ consideration.

5.4

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

·                Evidence suggested that investment in mental health could significantly improve physical health and that the Integrated Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Programme would assist in providing better support to those with both mental health and physical health problems and achieve better outcomes.

·                There was a need to look at prevention in more detail in order to reduce attendances at A&E and this was not as developed as required.  It was important to get mental health aspects into day to day situations and integrate into health access.

·                The financial efficiency savings were about reducing unnecessary health and social care usage, whilst the Short Term Educational Programme looked to reduce the budget but with a negligible reduction in spend in quantum. 

·                The savings for this financial year were forecast at £1.94 million and it was felt that this would stand the programme in good stead to exceed projected savings in Years 2, 3 and 4. 

·                Sheffield spent around £148 million on mental health services each year which would be an absolute minimum and could in fact increase.  A big part of the programme was to invest in mental health, so that the benefits would be seen in other areas.

·                It was important to consider what prevention looked like, particularly in terms of reducing isolation and building resilience in local communities.

·                Whilst the projected savings in Year 1 had not been fully achieved, it was hoped to achieve what had been set out for Year 2. 

·                Whilst it was conceded that use of the expression ‘unduly compromised’ in paragraph 3.2 of the report might have been a poor use of language, it was emphasised that the clinical/professional leads for the five large scale transformational schemes were the guardians of quality.  It should also be borne in mind that everything that had been done has had, or will have, a positive impact on patient care. 

·                Thirty-seven people had been returned from high cost placements and were now living closer to their families, and there had been no adverse reports arising from this.  This also served to increase efficiencies, as less money was going into the private sector as a consequence.

·                There needed to be conversations about long term care with regard to how services could work with older people, to ensure that they were in the right place at the right time.

·                SHSC would not directly benefit financially from the programme and had its own different separate savings to make.

·                The first £800,000 of efficiencies would be made available to the SCC, up to £1.6 million.  Efficiencies generated after that point would be shared on a 50:50 basis with the SCCG. 

·                The A&E target for seeing people was four hours, but if the Mental Health Liaison Team were called they could usually be seen within two hours, although experiences had been reported of longer waits.

·                The mobilisation of the Integrated Improving Access to Psychological Therapies Programme was now on schedule, with a Planning Officer now being employed.

·                Outcomes of the Open Book session had not yet been scoped.

·                Assumptions around early intervention were based on the fact that primary care was cheaper than secondary care, with those individuals with complex issues being dealt with at the primary care stage.  This would mean a transfer of resources in terms of improving GP time allocations.

·                Employment was regarded as being very important for people with mental health issues and a £6million bid around employment from the Department of Work and Pensions had resulted in 20 people being supported in employment. 

·                It was felt that poor mental health could now be identified earlier and that there was now more opportunity to join up working.

·                Where urgent care was provided, it was important to take into account mental health considerations.

5.5

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 the questions;

(c)        requests that the Director of Commissioning, Inclusion and Learning submits a short written piece, setting out how Committee Members could contribute to the implementation of the Mental Health Transformation Programme, to the Policy and Improvement Officer for circulation to Committee Members; and

(d)       requests that an update report on the Mental Health Transformation Programme be presented to the Committee in 12 months’ time, such report to include details of achievements in relation to Liaison Mental Health, efficiency savings and investment.