Agenda item

Bev Searle, Director of Joint Commissioning, NHS Berkshire outlined the results of the additional engagement work agreed by NHS Berkshire and Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (BHFT) in July.  Members were reminded that an alternative means of providing Mental Health In-patient Services for East Berkshire patients had been sought for a consideration time and that there was clear consensus that the existing arrangements on three separate sites, in accommodation which does not allow for single rooms, en-suite facilities and safe access to outside space was not an acceptable standard of provision for patients and was likely to compromise clinical outcomes.  It was submitted that the number of people requiring mental health in-patient services had continued to decline and with the benefit of additional community services and improvements in quality and productivity it was likely that this trend would continue.  The proportion of people receiving mental health services who required inpatient services was growing smaller, but there was a corresponding  growth in acuity and the level of risk presented.  This added further wait to the requirement for specialist environment to ensure that patients needs were met effectively. 

Additional engagement work undertaken had confirmed a good level of understanding of the case for change amongst stakeholders.  However, it was clear that for some stakeholders concern remained about the distance of Prospect Park Hospital in Reading both for patients and their families, the nature of any transport support available and the planned community service development. 

The anticipated benefits of the service were detailed and included:

·  The new service would provide both an early intervention and a basis for longer term recovery work which would result in fewer admissions and a reduced length of stay for this client group.

·  Individuals would experience a preferred method of service delivery much more capable of meeting their needs.

·  The children of people who use the service were likely to experience a happier, more secure upbringing, therefore there was a reduced likelihood of local authority care and a decrease from the probability that they would themselves experience future problems. 

·  There was an anticipated reduction in the use of GP, Ambulance and A&E time because of less medication to stress them self-harming.

·  Increased opportunity for individuals to find pathways into work and other positive ways to contribute to the town’s society.

Members were reminded that the cost of a new build facility on the Upton site was previously estimated at approximately £21 million, which would require borrowing above the level of reserves held by BHFT.  A new build on Wexham Park site would also approximately cost the same. It was explained that the cost of changes required to Prospect Park Hospital would be between  £5-6 million. This funding was already available within the BHFT budget, having been built up over a number of years, as a one?off sum to support anticipated necessary changes to inpatient services.  Members were informed that consideration of all options needed to be in the context of the savings plan that BHFT was already embarking on, in order to meet demand and continue to provide effective services. However, any additional investment required or loss of currently identified savings would impact on community service provision.

Members were asked for their views prior to a meeting of the BHFT Cluster Board which was scheduled for January 2012.

The Chair of the Panel stated that, in her view, the Panel could not make an informed opinion without all the information and facts being presented to Members.  It was noted that information regarding the financial viability for each of the options needed to be detailed and presented to the Scrutiny Panel.  In addition, it was submitted that a decision could not be made whilst the ‘Shaping the Future’ consultation was ongoing. 

A number of Members also expressed concern that they had been led to believe that the Prospect Park facility was ready to move in but it had now transpired that a significant amount of money needed to be spent at Prospect Park and that some services would be outsourced. Furthermore, the report  that had been presented to the meeting did not reflect the concerns that the Panel had expressed on a number of occasions. 

A Member sought clarification with regard to the budget allocated for transport to and from Prospect Park.  Ms Searle confirmed that the identification of a £100K recurrent budget to provide transport solution would be available on an annual basis.  Members stated that it would not be possible to provide BHFT with an informed response prior to their Cluster Board meeting in January 2012.

It was agreed that Ms Searle would present a detailed report outlining all options available against a number of criteria, including impact on community services, financial options, impact on clinical outcomes and impact on accessibility. 

Resolved  – That a report detailing all possible options with regard to the provision of mental health inpatient services to be provided to a future meeting of the Health Scrutiny Panel.

(The meeting was adjourned for 5 minutes).