Accessibility settings

In order to remember your preferences as you navigate through the site, a cookie will be set.

Color preference

Text size

Agenda item

Gloucestershire Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee Update

To receive an update from the Council’s representative on matters considered at the last meeting (14 July 2020). 

Minutes:

13.1          Members received an update from the Council’s representative on the Gloucestershire Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (HOSC) on matters discussed at the meeting on 14 July 2020. She referred Members to the fact that a report had been circulated with the Agenda at Pages No. 37-38 and she would just highlight some of the salient points contained in that report.

13.2          The Council’s representative stated that at the start of the meeting there had been two public representations; the first one had been about concerns over the 32 deaths in the Alston and St. Marks Medium Super Output Area (MSAO) in Cheltenham, which had been considered to be very high in that area over a short period of time, and the other related to patient safety concerns with temporary service changes at Gloucester Royal Hospital and Cheltenham General Hospital. In respect of the first representation, the HOSC decided to refer the matter to a different Scrutiny Committee, to investigate why this had occurred so that if there was a re-emergence of COVID-19 later in the year they would be better prepared. It was felt that a significant factor could relate to the fact that there were nine elderly persons establishments in this area. In respect of the second representation, a response was provided around the need to revise practices in order to deliver a safe service and the changes had been endorsed by all 13 emergency consultants working in this area.

13.3          Discussion took place on the COVID-19 temporary service changes, which initially had involved extensive re-prioritisation with all organisations in the NHS and Social Care working together, and the use of private hospitals. The infection was still with us although the rates had changed but plans were being put in place for the autumn/winter should there be a rise in COVID-19 cases alongside winter flu issues. It was stressed that the changes were temporary and had nothing to do with “Fit for the Future”, although some of the changes were mentioned in “Fit for the Future” which it was felt could cause some confusion. However, it had given the opportunity to try out some of the changes in working practices and use of hospitals that were being suggested in “Fit for the Future” and could be used to inform this piece of work. The temporary changes were set to continue for a further three months. In view of the concerns about the re-emergence of COVID-19 alongside the winter flu, the flu injections were being rolled out earlier and to a wider age group.

13.4          The meeting then went on to talk about “Fit for the Future” which was progressing slowly due to the pandemic. The report from the Council’s representative indicated that it was hoped to launch a public consultation in September-December, including a virtual consultation of the Citizens Jury in November, with a business case in January/February and implementation in March/April but this may slip dependant on whether there was a second peak of COVID-19. There were two further reports considered at the meeting; Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group Performance Report, which did not read well as nearly all activities and performance had been adversely impacted by COVID-19, and the Gloucestershire Clinical Commissioning Group – Clinical Chair/Accountability Report which covered three areas; NHS Commissioner update incorporating national consultation, Primary Medical Care update and Trust updates from Gloucestershire Health and Care NHS Foundation and Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation. Both reports were fairly lengthy but were available in full on the County Council’s website should Members of the Committee wish to read them.

13.5          A Member asked whether there had been any discussion around the first question from the public in relation to older people, care homes and the level of deaths from COVID-19 and why the Nightingale Hospitals had been mothballed so early and in effect never really used. The Council’s representative indicated that the Nightingale Hospitals had not been mentioned and, as far as the area of Cheltenham with the high elderly death rate was concerned, additional finance was made available in the area to provide an increase in professional care for the elderly and avoid unnecessary travel for family members. Additional training was provided as well as increased Personal Protective Equipment provision and instruction on its proper usage. Ultimately, there were more deaths than was the case in other areas which was why a review was to be undertaken to ensure that lessons could be learned.

13.6          The Chair thanked the representative for her report, and it was

RESOLVED          That the Gloucestershire Health Overview and Scrutiny Update be NOTED.

Supporting documents: