Agenda item

Report of the Spotlight Review held on 14 December 2020 and Representations to the Devon CCG Board, attached.

Also attached is a Devon CCG Update (and appendices) following approval of a series of recommendations on the 17 December 2020 by their Governing Body. 

(Councillors J Clatworthy and A Dewhirst attended in accordance with Standing Order 25 (2) and spoke to this item. Councillor Dewhirst referred to local community objections to the proposals (based on a range of issues) and support for the retention of the Teignmouth Community Hospital and requested that a formal referral be made to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Councillor Clatworthy referred to the local support of services at Dawlish Community Hospital and at the Minor Injuries Unit).

The Committee received the Notes of the Spotlight Review on 14 December 2020 held over two sessions with respectively Healthwatch Devon and the NHS Devon Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). As a result of the Review representations had been made to the CCG (attached to the report of the Review) which had concluded ‘ members do not believe that the consultation has convincingly supported the claim that the proposed changes are in the best interests of the health needs of the population in the area”. 

The Committee also received an update Report from the CCG following the approval of a series of recommendations on the 17 December 2020 by NHS Devon CCG Governing Body. This decision would mean that some services will be moved from Teignmouth Community Hospital to a new Health and Wellbeing Centre in the Town Centre and some services to Dawlish Community Hospital. The Governing Body had also approved a recommendation to continue with a model of community-based intermediate care and reverse a previous decision to establish 12 rehabilitation beds at Teignmouth Community Hospital. The CCG’s Report stated that the Governing Body had recognised some of the issues raised throughout the consultation and those by the Spotlight Review and had made recommendations to address them. The Governing Body’s final recommendations were detailed in their Report.

Officers from the CCG reported on the rationale for the Board’s decision.  

The Head of Scrutiny reported on the options for the Committee. If the Committee was concerned that the CCG Governing Body’s decision was not in the best interests of health services and/or there had been inadequate consultation then a formal referral could be made to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care which would be considered initially by the Independent Reconfiguration Panel (IRP). This Committee could also decide to approach the IRP informally to open discussion and seek advice prior to any further proposed actions.  

Members’ questions and discussion points with the NHS Officers included:

·         the local Member’s support for an informal approach to the IRP to seek independent advice and views before any further proposed actions;

·         the CCG’s acknowledgement concerning the engagement process and subsequent formal consultations and learning points for the future including early engagement with Scrutiny;

·         some Members’ views on the adequacy, timeline and voracity of the consultation process;

·         concerns about the CCG in addressing the views and concerns highlighted by the consultation and points raised by this Committee’s Spotlight Review;

·         concerns relating to parking provision and constraints and ongoing dialogue by the CCG with local authorities in regard to public transport to mitigate parking constraints;

·         concerns about the sufficiency and quality of intermediate rehabilitation care and community care services in the area and whether the interest of health services was best served by the CCG’s proposals; and

·         the threshold required for a formal referral to the Secretary of State and likely outcome.  

Councillor H Ackland MOVED and Councillor S Randall Johnson SECONDED

(a) that the CCG be requested to keep this Committee:

(i) closely informed of the progress of their plan via an agreed timetable of updates; and 

(ii) to provide up to date information on intermediate care operations that include emergency readmissions after discharge, delayed transfers of care and the number of patients that are taken from hospital to a care home bed and if they are able to go home after 6 weeks; and 

(b) that the Clinical Commissioning Group be requested to make an evaluation of the efficacy of intermediate care in the Teignmouth/Dawlish area that includes qualitative patient experience case studies; and

(c) that this Scrutiny Committee makes an informal approach to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel seeking its advice and views about the issues and concerns raised in regard to the proposals (and whether the proposals serve the best interest of health services in the area) and the adequacy of the consultation process before any further action is considered.

Councillor M Shaw then MOVED and Councillor N Way SECONDED that the decision of the Devon Clinical Commission Group in regard to the proposals for Modernising Health and Care Services in the Teignmouth and Dawlish area be referred to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (and his Independent Reconfiguration Panel) by reason that the proposals do not serve the best interest of Health Services in the area and inadequacy of the consultation process (relating to, inter alia, the limited options available and inherent bias).

The AMENDMENT in the name of Councillor Shaw was put to the vote and declared LOST.

The MOTION in the name of Councillor H Ackland was then put to the vote and declared CARRIED.