Agenda item

NHS 111 Service

Report of Homerton University Hospital Foundation Trust

Minutes:

The Committee received a report of Homerton University Hospital Foundation Trust and welcomed Nina Griffith, Workstream Director for Unplanned Care in a cross-borough City and Hackney role, to the meeting. A new 111 service was being procured for North-East London, and the Committee was given an overview of the planned service. The intention was that one phone call would give patients access to a doctor and service if needed, with various outcomes including self-care, a GP, urgent GP or pharmacy appointment, or a referral to A&E. Call handlers would be non-clinical, but clinicians would be on hand and available if necessary. Children and elderly patients would be put straight to through to a clinician. The service was not intended to overlap with 999 which would still be the recommendation for emergencies. The Committee noted the NHE England specifications, and that the single point of entry was a strong national driver.

 

The Committee noted the current patient model in City and Hackney provided by the City & Hackney Urgent Healthcare Social Enterprise (CHUHSE) system was small and no longer viable. CHUHSE would provide interim cover for face-to-face GP out-of-hours services until March 2019, with the new 111 service going live on 1 August 2018, at which point the CHUHSE telephone service would cease.

 

A Member suggested that patients over the age of 75 may find it more difficult to express themselves over the phone and asked how the service could help these patients. It was hoped that within call handling issues like this could be picked up and inform clinicians as to how to direct the call. The Committee was informed that the Home Visiting service would also continue for City residents. A key change under the new service was that there would be more options for out-of-hours appointments and locations. Out-of-hours Hubs were planned, one of which would be the Neaman Practice. Clinicians would determine which professional a patient needed and would have a directory on hand to find the best one for the patient. A Member suggested that there may be patients outside of children and the elderly who should be put straight through to a clinician, and pointed out that GPs had a list of patients who should be fast-tracked that they could share with the 111 service.

 

The Committee was informed that work was ongoing with the 111 design team on such issues. There had been a good level of clinical input into the design of the service to give it a strong line of sight and the right level of detail to be effective, but the service would be informed by feedback and could always be improved.

 

A Member asked if the service would be available for people working in the City of London as opposed to residents. The 111 service would be available and patients would be referred locally if they required urgent treatment, but would otherwise be referred to their local GP. Full specifications for the service were still under negotiation and could be shared after June when contracts had been finalised. Members suggested that if response times for the service were not quick patients would be likely to call 999 instead. Members also suggested that the service be able to pick up the number of the person calling in case they needed to respond urgently to a distressed or incapacitated caller, as with the 999 service which could override withheld Caller IDs.

 

The Committee thanked Nina Griffith for her excellent presentation.

 

RESOLVED – That the report be noted.

 

Supporting documents: