Presentation on structure and future plans of Havering Clinical Commissioning Group (provisional item).
Minutes:
The borough director explained that the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) was headed by a board of seven experienced clinicians, each leading on a particular area. The CCG would have to deal with a number of issues specific to Havering including a growing population and pockets of deprivation. Other challenges included issues regarding Queen’s Hospital, introducing improvements to primary care and the rising demand for health services.
The CCG was already planning clinical improvements including the introduction of seven outpatient clinics in community settings and undertaking peer reviews of how individual practices were performing. Corporate successes included the merger of the previous two Havering CCGs into one organisation and a draft constitution being developed. The CCG board would operate as a shadow CCG from 1 April with delegated authority from NHS ONEL for the community budget. Overall responsibility for the budget would however remain with NHS ONEL for another year.
As regards engaging with partners, the CCG had undertaken a lot of work with patients, Councillors and the Local Involvement Network. Work was also in progress with the Health and Wellbeing Board. The borough director accepted that there was a very challenging year ahead but was confident that the CCG would rise to the challenge.
Members were anxious to ensure that patients would not see any reductions in services but the borough director emphasised the CCG would have patients at its centre with the implications for patients of any changes being considered at the CCG board. The overall NHS budget had been uplifted by 2% but outpatient clinics located in the community as planned by the CCG would also be cheaper to operate than those in acute settings.
All GP surgeries would be required to have patient participation groups of which there were currently 12 in total. Lesley Buckland, NHS ONEL vice-chairman, was leading on patient engagement for the CCG.
A representative of Havering LINk was concerned about any possible loss of contact between patient and doctor as a result of these changes. The borough director responded that the GPs involved were funded to employ locums whilst they were engaged in CCG work. It was a matter for each practice to manage continuity of care. Two of the members of the CCG board were semi-retired and hence did less clinical work in any case. It was emphasised that overall GP consulting hours were not expected to reduce as a result of the CCG being set up.
The salaries paid to GPs were confidential but funding to set up the CCG equated to £2 per head of resident population and so totalled approximately £500,000. This was also expected to cover the costs of clinical backfill and engagement work. The budget was expected to be underspent at the end of the year.
The borough director was certain that the CCG would lead to an improvement on the existing healthcare system as the performance management framework introduced would address quality and financial issues.
The Committee was concerned that there were no female doctors on the CCG board but the borough director responded that there were a lot of women on the wider management team and that the transition year would see further changes.