Strategic Development Committee Thursday 10th September 2009 12:00 – 14:00 Conference Room, St Luke’s House
Minutes Present: Sheila Dilks Tony Gerrard Sam Williamson
James Drury Bryan Machin
Peter Flynn Carol McKenna (Chair)
In attendance: David Wood representing David Anderson Deborah Collis representing Judith Hooper 1.
Introduction and apologies
Apologies were received from David Anderson and Judith Hooper. Peter Flynn would arrive late. 2.
Minutes of 4th June meeting
Minutes were agreed to be a true and accurate record. 3.
Action: • Adele to forward June and August minutes to Board. 3.1
Representation from Commissioning College
Carol explained that she and David Anderson had recently met with Practice Based Commissioners to discuss who should come to the Commissioning College. There had been no representation from the North of the patch. They intended to discuss subcommittees in an October meeting. Action: • Carol to discuss this issue further with David Anderson.
Bryan Machin advised that there would be no update at today’s meeting. 3.3
Community hospitals update
James Drury gave a brief, verbal update. He advised that HVMH was progressing according to plans and completion of the OBC was due at the end of September 2009. With regards to the town centre health centre, a second meeting was planned to look through what people would want to see there and then assess what was achievable. The meeting agreed that the HVMH OBC would need to come to Strategic Development Committee (SDC) on 8th October, in advance of going to PCT Board at the end of October. 4.
Principles for prioritisation – progress paper
Carol reminded the group of a KPMG session in August 2009 and spoke about follow up work. Deborah Collis guided the meeting through Attachment 2, describing it as an amalgamation of the guidelines used in the Health Needs Assessment and the KPMG work. The meeting agreed that some language would need tailoring to make the document less generic. It was also agreed that a broader scoring scale was required. Carol recommended testing this paper against key areas and Sheila agreed, suggesting it was done before the next BAFTA meeting. Sheila and Sam felt Diabetes would provide a good test case. Carol would be asking programme leads to use this tool to assess what they were currently doing and which areas were not offering value for money. It was agreed that E1 and E6 would need rewording and that further explanation was required to avoid a high score necessarily giving a positive result. Bryan Machin expressed concern that the questions in the paper would not identify which of the eleven programme areas was priority. He could not envisage the paper’s effectiveness outside of business cases. Discussion followed and it was agreed that detailed investigation would be required. It was agreed that BAFTA should refocus to deal with this. Carol advised it would be necessary to advise BAFTA to try the prioritisation tool. 5.
Bryan Machin drew attention to a list of all premises proposals currently being worked on by KPCT. He advised that it had become necessary to prioritise projects as KPCT was no longer able to afford them all. He had met with David Henwood, Judith Hooper and Carol McKenna for a rounded viewpoint before assigning order of priority. Bryan advised that there needed to be prioritisation communication and asked if there should then be a consultation. He advised that only new projects would be affected.
It was possible that the Board might need to make a decision in future on the relative priority of projects. Bryan advised that a position would be taken with regards to the Bradford Road project as papers were about to be signed. Action: • Bryan to review the Kirkheaton dental practice project. • Adele to include item on next SDC agenda. 6.
WCC Year 2 – Refreshing strategic and financial plans
Carol advised that this was not the final version. She confirmed that final plans would be submitted to the SHA in January. Outline plans would therefore need to be submitted to SHA in November, meaning Board would need them in December. It was agreed that two extra Board sessions should be held to facilitate working together on this. Sam had revisited the feedback letter and emphasised that it was pivotal to understand whether requirements had been met. The meeting agreed that KPCT’s eleven programmes should be considered ‘initiatives’ at this level. The meeting agreed to Carol’s suggestion of a small, editorial group to manage this in the next two months, ensuring alignment with Lord Darzi’s policies. Sam advised that focus was needed on this paper before the next SDC meeting on October 8th. Members of the editorial group would be Deborah Collis, Sam Williamson, Carol McKenna, Bryan Machin and Peter Flynn. 7.
Programme delivery strategy
Carol advised that lots of work had been done in Public Health and Long Term Conditions to develop programme plans. She asked the group to take the document away and consider whether projects meet guidance and how we would get to the next stage of the reporting programme. This would be in preparation for a discussion at the next SDC meeting. Sam advised that, in terms of context, this document had been formulated with MSP in mind. Action: • Group members to read and consider document. • Adele to include item on next SDC agenda. 8.
ADHD commissioning of CYP services.
Carol explained that this had been brought to SDC to make members, particularly Board members, aware of work now underway. The service provided by CHFT would be recommissioned from the Trust for 2010/11, in line with NICE guidance. A letter was due to be distributed to the parents of all children on Dr Sills’ caseload. Mike Potts would make Non Executive Directors aware of this situation.
Transforming community services
Carol felt it was necessary to bring this to SDC to give an understanding of various work streams. On Bryan’s instruction, Sam explained that she had been working on this issue and distributed a paper amongst the group. Keeping in mind that it would be
an election year, Sam suggested speaking with community services to see if they were ready to stand alone. The meeting agreed that the Commissioning Strategy strand should feed into the sponsoring group (SDC) as opposed to being a product of it. Discussion followed regarding other changes to the diagram. It was agreed that a meeting should be held for a stock take on progress. Action: • Sam Williamson to schedule meeting for stock take on progress. • Sam Williamson to update diagram. 10. Any other business There were no further items to discuss. 11. Date and time of next meeting Thursday 8th October 2009, 14:00 – 16:00, Conference Room, St. Luke’s House
Published on Jun 28, 2010