Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from the Deputy Chairman, the Revd. Dr Martin Dudley, and Alderman Alison Gowman.

Steve Stevenson and Vivienne Littlechild declared standing interests by virtue of being residents in the City of London.

To agree the public minutes and non-public summary of the meeting held on 1 November 2016.

RESOLVED – That, subject to one amendment, the public minutes of the meeting held on 1 November 2016 be agreed as a correct record.

Matters Arising

Defibrillators

Waitrose had been contacted regarding having a defibrillator in the White Cross Street branch but no decision had been reached. Sainsbury’s had agreed to put defibrillators in their 100 largest stores, however, as none  of these was in the Square Mile, local Sainsbury’s and Tesco stores throughout the square mile were being contacted.

Members noted that the London Ambulance Service Patients’ Forum had been turned down by Boots and, regarding installation of defibrillators in telephone boxes, BT was still re-evaluating the use of payphones in major cities and not taking on any adoptions in town and city centres at the present time.

Adult Social Care Duty System

Members noted a response regarding the Adult Social Care Duty Team’s performance was still awaited from the City of London Police.

Report of the Director of Community & Children’s Services.

The Committee received a report of the Director of Community & Children’s Services regarding the design and delivery of domiciliary care services for City of London Residents. Officers explained how Domiciliary Care Support was offered in the form of an Individual Budget as well as through the City of London’s Adult Social Care Services’ In-house Reablement service, and that Bluebird Care had recently been confirmed as the new sole provider of domiciliary care services.

Members discussed the report in detail and the following points were raised:

·         Members agreed that the scale shown on graphs included in the report was misleading, and officers advised this was partly due to the low resident numbers in the square mile but undertook to check the figures.

·         Officers undertook to put together indicators to monitor outcomes for different choices of care, but advised that generally those who chose to receive care from the provider commissioned by the Corporation (rather than taking an individual budget) tended to be the most frail.

·         Officers confirmed that a back-up provider was in place and current service users would have a choice whether to retain their current provider or transition to Bluebird Care.

·         In response to a Member’s comment regarding telecare, officers agreed technological options were investigated as they could enhance domiciliary care and fill gaps in service, but for the eldest and frailest residents human contact continued to be the most popular and effective.

·         The qualitative aspect to care had been emphasised in the tender for the new provider and Members noted residents would have an individualised assessment of need.

·         Hospital communication with social care continued to be challenging, but officers confirmed that once contact was made and consent given by the individual, the social care team ensured reablement services were put in place.

·         With regard to isolation and

Report of the Director of Community & Children’s Services.

The Committee received a report of the Director of Community & Children’s Services which provided further detail regarding the integrated commissioning model between the City of London Corporation and the NHS City and Hackney Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) Governing Body.

Members discussed the report in detail and the following points were raised:

·         The “equitable approach” referred to in the report was a misleading term. Officers confirmed the intention was to adopt a similar approach regarding integrated commissioning across the CCG’s area and not about standardising the level of service across the two areas which may have an impact on the standard of service in the City of London.

·         Members challenged officers on the lack of information regarding employees with learning difficulties and officers agreed, confirming it was a problem in schools and health services as well.

·         Members sought and were given assurances that the ‘committees-in-common’ governance structure would not prohibit the Corporation from making decisions. Keeping separate Integrated Commissioning Boards secured a City-specific focus which was continued through the work-streams.

·         Members queried how the level of care provided to Portsoken residents would be safeguarded. Officers confirmed the integrated approach was a leap of faith but the CCG was trusted to take account of the different needs of City and Hackney. They advised that if the model proved successful it could be used it as leverage to reopen discussions regarding partnerships with other CCGs. Members sought and were given assurances that objectives/KPIs would be put in places to ensure services to Portsoken residents were being delivered to the same, if not better, standard.

·         With regard to public health provision for City workers, officers advised they were in discussions with Barts Health to provide more primary care services at the minor injury unit.

·         Officers confirmed that there was still uncertainty regarding the break

There were no questions.

There was no other business.

MOTION - That under Section 100(A) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of the Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

RESOLVED – That, under Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items on the grounds that the involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act.

            Item Nos.                                                        Exempt Paragraph(s)  
             9                                                                               3

            10-11                                                                           -

Email received response to queries raised at the previous meeting regarding the Private Patient Unit at St Bartholomew’s Hospital.

The Committee received an update regarding the private patient unit at St Bartholomew’s Hospital and ask officers to follow this up after the contract had been signed.

There were no questions.

Members discussed a possible visit to the Neaman Practice later in the year.