Agenda item

To receive questions from Members of the Public, which will be managed at the discretion of the Chair.

The following questions were received

From Doug Wright:-

1.    The Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee have previously stated that 80% of all NHS business (presumably from STP to ICS) should be scrutinised at a local level. In Doncaster there has been no NHS business scrutinised by the Doncaster Overview and Scrutiny Committee since at least 2015. I believe that some of the other four ICS local authorities may be in a similar position.  Can you inform me and the 1.5 million people in South Yorkshire and Bassettlaw how democratically this will be done in the future?

2.    Is it the responsibility of the above committee to scrutinise Doncaster Joint Commission Management Board? (DJCMB) I ask this question because both Doncaster CCG and Doncaster Council have held many DJCMB meetings without giving formal notice of meetings, consulting or allowing members of the public to participate in any form. For procedural reasons this is unlikely to change for another ten months. If this committee is not responsible for DJCMB then who is?

From Leonora Everitt:-

1.    Are the JHOSC members aware that the ICS public involvement does not meet the CCGs’ statutory involvement duty and that:-

·         The public should be involved in commissioning proposals, plans and decisions, as the law states in Section 14z2 of the H&SC Act 2006 – as amended in 2012?

·         The Citizen’s Panel only has two thirds of its membership selected as citizen representatives, the remaining third being from ICS partners and ICS staff?

·         The ‘citizen’ members of the Citizen’s Panel do not represent the  geographical demographics across the five places in SY&B proportionately?

From Deborah Cobbett on behalf of South Yorkshire NHS Action Group (SYBNAG):-

1.    Are the JHOSC members aware that many paediatric staff are not supportive of the proposals for paediatric services, including those involved neonatal and maternity services and that they dispute the data used in making the HSR recommendations?

2.    a) What reports have the JOHSC received on the red and amber risks relating to the Integrated Care System (ICS) and the Hospital Services Programme (HSP) in the last two months; and when did the JHOSC last consider the risk register for both the ICS and HSP?

b) Do the risk registers include risks relating to:

            - Lack of public information and involvement

            - Diversion of funds from patient care to, for example

                        *Outsourcing of engagement tasks

                        *Commissioning and managing contracts

            - Transport for patients and families

            - The level of staff ‘buy in’

            - the speed and secrecy of decision-making outside a legal framework    for the ICS

c) What items on the risk register are of most concern to the JHOSC members?

From Deborah Cobbett:-

1.    Future challenges include: "Governance that supports change and doesn't delay it."  (page 21, para 4.3) 

Are Scrutiny members satisfied with this, given public concerns about the speed and secrecy of decision-making outside a legal framework for the ICS?

2.     In section 6, on the Hospital Services Review,  it is stated, on page 7, that there was an online and telephone survey, but I don't recall a phone survey being mentioned before.  

Do members agree with criticisms of telephone surveys on complex issues made by Sheffield Healthwatch in relation to the Urgent Care Review?  Would you agree that being cold-called by somebody with a long complicated script is not conducive to giving an informed opinion on a complex issue?

3.     The JHOSC requested an easy read version of the Hospital Review Report.  I have read this and it seems patronising in style and at times economical with the truth for example:  

·            Why are there so many grammatical errors and meaningless sentence fragments, such as: For children who need specialist treatment have an equal chance to have specialist care within the South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw, Mid Yorkshire and North Derbyshire areas. (page 8)

·            Is it acceptable to omit the recommendation for fewer consultant-led units and just state: It may be better to have larger maternity units with more senior specialist doctors (consultants) in each of these units. (page 9)

Do Scrutiny members find the pamphlet acceptable or would the guidelines of the Plain English Campaign (http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/) be more helpful than the rewriting by the Friendly Information Company (http://www.friendlyinformation.org.uk/)?

4.    The word 'inappropriate' is used to describe some public questions and some prescribed medicines.  Surely there is no such thing as a stupid or inappropriate question if the public are concerned about something, while in the case of prescriptions, there is implied criticism of the ability of clinicians to do their job properly.

Who decides what is appropriate in questions or in prescribed medication?

5. Paragraph 3.28 refers to the Citizens' Panel and its published minutes.  These seem very one-sided in that no response is made to any of the suggestions, which in any case resemble the type of issues already raised in PPG Network meetings in Sheffield and Hospital Service Review public events.  

What value is being added by the Panel, in the sense that duplication should be avoided and resources maximised?

From Ken Dalwin:-

1.  The latest information from NHS England indicates a 5 year plan is forthcoming, but given our area is a pilot and in advance of others, is it expected that progress will be paused?

From Peter Deakin:-

1.  What can be done to make sure the public are aware of events and can be involved?

The Chair gave assurances that responses would be provided in writing directly to those providing questions.

RESOLVED that the questions be received and responses be provided in writing.