Agenda item

(20 mins)

Andrew Millard (AM), Scrutiny Officer, updated the Panel on the situation regarding proposals to re-site Mental Health beds.  He reminded the Panel that the Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (BHFT) wrote to the Council on 7^th July 2010, seeking input into and comments on the proposed public consultation. AM collated responses from Councillors and these were forwarded to the Trust on 27^th July, 2010.

The Panel noted that no response was received and the Trust’s consultation was launched on 16^th August, 2010.  AM forwarded a letter to the Trust again  on 17^th August, setting out Members’ views.

Philippa Slinger, had replied on 25^th August, 2010 but a number of points remained unanswered. (Responses where available shown in italics):

·  Scrutiny had twice questioned the accuracy of the Travel Survey (including some specific points) being used for and referred within the consultation.  It was therefore questioned how that survey could be used within the consultation.

The Trust had not accepted deficiencies in the original Travel Survey but had agreed that a new one would be commissioned.

• The Panel had requested to view the ‘independent market research’, that was referred in the consultation as this had not been provided.

·  It was requested that the detail of the end bed numbers relating to the three options (particularly before and after) be spelled out clearly as this was not clear within the proposed consultation document.

The Trust had still not answered clearly and in writing about the before and the after bed numbers under each scenario.

·  Was the proposed £100,000 for the travel assistance a one-off amount or would it be funded to this level each and every year and how, in reality, would this work?

The Trust had not answered the key questions relating to the notional £100,000  allocation re the Travel Arrangements.

• How would relocation admission delays be handled?
• Had travel times between the different sites been considered?
• Under Option 1, a 27% reduction in East Berkshire bed numbers would occur and how this should be made clear?
• What was the outcome of discussions with the emergency services?
• How would each of the three options affect Adult Social Care integration in the future?
• Importantly, there appeared to be two formats of response questionnaire in circulation. The first was biased towards one end of the response spectrum and was accepted as such by the Trust. How would the Trust therefore deal with such responses and if this was  unsatisfactory, would the consultation be scrapped altogether and recommence at a future date? If not, then surely this could leave the Trust open to a possible legal challenge as the responses must be invalid?

The Trust had not answered how they would deal with the fundamental problem relating to the two different response questionnaires.

Julian Emms (JE), Deputy Chief Executive, BHFT, in attendance at the meeting,  stated that some inaccurate comments had been made especially regarding bed numbers and that the consultation document was clear on this point. AM reminded JE that after the last Health Scrutiny Panel meeting JE had spoken to himself and to Jane Wood, Director Of Community & Wellbeing and conceded that the document was unclear. JE had given an assurance that he would ensure the exact numbers would be advised at each public consultation meeting.

In the ensuing debate, a number of questions/comments were raised by Members including the following (responses by JE shown in italics):-

• The consultation questionnaire had now been re-issued.  Would the Trust re-issue the second questionnaire to those individuals who had already completed the first one?

JE advised that he would forward a response to this question once  he had discussed this matter with the organisation that was responsible for the running of the questionnaire process.

• Would the number of beds allocated to Berkshire East be guaranteed at Prospect Park Hospital if there was an excessive demand for beds required by Berkshire West?

There were 10,000 service users in Berkshire East and there would be a reduction from 80 beds to 64 but some home treatment would be provided.  The Board would have to satisfy itself that it was providing enough beds for the demographic area.  Beds in the older people’s ward had been under-occupied and there were currently 70 in use in Berkshire East.  The number of beds stipulated would be provided. 

• It appeared that some individuals who had attended consultation meetings were not happy about the proposals.  Was it true that the decision on the re-siting of mental health beds had already been taken? 

JE stated that it was absolutely not true that the Board had already made its decision. He also stated that there was no pressure for the Trust to make the decision and that current  tenants would be able to remain on existing sites until the position forward had been established. 

• Under option 2 what was the position regarding other mental health patients – would they also go to Prospect Park Hospital?

Under option 2 all inpatients would go to Prospect Park other than cases where older people would be offered the option to go to St Mark’s Hospital (20 beds) which would remain open.

• It was felt that current population figures in Slough were inaccurate and had not been reflected in the previous census.  Was the Trust’s plans based on accurate population figures?

JE advised that hidden population had been reflected in the figures.  He emphasised that the Trust was financially stable and there were no issues with the Trust’s current financial position.  The project had been driven by the external economic situation and the Trust was required to make savings by Government.   

• It was felt that the consultation document gave more emphasis to Prospect Park rather than to other options and JE was asked to comment on this.

The propositions that had been put forward were clear and all three options were feasible although they had different outcomes. 

• If the responses to the consultation indicated that the majority of Consultees would prefer to have a hospital at Upton Park, how would the Trust deal with this. 

The Board would have to decide which option to take and provide an explanation for its decision.  If the Upton Hospital option was chosen then the Trust would need to plan for finances and then return to scrutiny. 

• Could a guarantee be given that the number of beds at Prospect Park for Berkshire East could be fixed?

Prospect Park Hospital was built to replace Fairmile Hospital but there were now free beds due to the provision of successful care in other settings.  The number of beds could not be guaranteed because bed usage would fluctuate and there were peaks and troughs in demand.  Flexibility was required between the East and West and beds would be managed in a sensible way.

• Would the £100,000 allocated for transport assistance to Prospect Park be increased every year?

Focus groups had been organised and organisations such as Links and the local authority would discuss how transport could be organised.  JE was confident that £100,000 was acceptable as an initial outlay. 

• When would the consultation end?

The consultation would run until the end of November, 2010.

• It was highlighted that whilst the proposals may be acceptable to some people who lived in Bracknell or Windsor and Maidenhead, the proposals were totally unacceptable for someone who lived, for example, in the Colnbrook area.

The comment was noted.

Resolved-   That the update be noted and that the Deputy Chief Executive be requested to provide written detail to the following points:

a)  How many of the first and of the second style consultation response forms were printed and are in circulation?

b)  What will happen to the first style response forms when returned?

c)  Would the response element of the consultation be recommenced in its entirety if an acceptable solution cannot be found to point b)?  This is of particular importance as the distribution of two distinctly different style forms would appear to invalidate any responses received.

d)  What are the exact number of beds being provided in the East and the West at present and what would be the resulting number both in the East and West that would be provided under each of the three options being considered.