Issue - meetings

INTEGRATED CARE PARTNERSHIP

Meeting: 25/04/2017 - Individuals Overview & Scrutiny Sub-Committee (Item 24)

24 INTEGRATED CARE PARTNERSHIP pdf icon PDF 798 KB

Report attached.

Minutes:

Officers explained that the Integrated Care Partnership (ICP) sought to bring forward further integration between the Council and the NHS. This was in response to the rising population and changing demographics within Havering. It was accepted that the £55 million deficit facing the three local Clinical Commissioning Groups was a significant challenge.

 

The ICP sought to bring together a number of different services that were involved in e.g. discharging a person from hospital. Work was in progress to develop a locality model with three localities covering the north, central area and south of Havering, each with a population of around 80,000. This took into account the demographic growth expected over the coming years.

 

In order to better understand the needs and demands of communities, the Council’s Joint Strategic Needs Assessment could be split by locality. There would be different needs and growth in each locality with for example, a lot of population growth in Rainham. The Council’s social care services had already begun to integrate its services around localities with those offered by the North East London NHS Foundation Trust.

 

The Partnership aimed to look beyond just health and social care at other factors such as employment and housing that impacted on health and wellbeing. Children’s Services also supported the model, with feedback from GPs that access to mental health services was difficult, being addressed by the establishment of a virtual team covering a variety of children’s mental health services at an earlier stage.

 

Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) was designed for only the most seriously ill children and funding had been received to seek to offer services at an earlier stage. Localities could be used to support a young person’s family and network.

 

The transition from child to adult services had been criticised by OFSTED and the Partnership work aimed to give young people the support to be as independent as possible. It was aimed to support children’s behaviour in the place where it was happening by skilling up families and teachers to manage challenging behaviour.

 

Support was offered to children with a variety of conditions such as ADHD, autism, Asperger’s Syndrome, self-harming and anxiety. It was hoped that schools could talk to the locality team about any initial concerns over children although a child’s family would also be worked with. Systemic therapy would be used to focus on what a child’s family thought was important.

 

Officers felt that the School Nurse should be the first point of contact if a school had concerns over a child, rather than the school going direct to a child’s family. The School Nursing Service was a universal provision and referral to this would not necessarily indicate a problem with the child’s family. A representative of Healthwatch added that healthcare professionals often confused social problems for medical problems and the integration of health and social care should address this.

It was clarified that schools could prompt children to take their medication but could not administer this directly. Any parents with concerns  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24