Borderline & Peterborough LCGs Joint Board Meeting
Friday 7th March 2014, 2:00 pm - 4:00 pm
Sorrento Room, The Fleet, Fleet Way,
High Street, Fletton, Peterborough, PE2 8DL
MINUTES
Attendees:
Borderline LCG Board
Dr Gary Howsam (GH)
Vice Chair, Borderline LCG
Dr Andrew Anderson (AA)
Community Services Lead, Borderline LCG
Mary Bryce (MB)
Healthwatch Representative,
Michael Bacon (MB)
Patient Participation Group Lead
Belinda Fraser (BF)
Nurse Representative, Borderline LCG
Dr Oliver Stovin (OS)
Referral Lead, Borderline LCG
Dr Cosmas Nnochiri (CN)
Cancer Lead, Borderline LCG
Dr Mark Attah (MA)
Quality Lead, Borderline LCG
Peterborough LCG Board
Dr Michael Caskey (MC) (Chair)
Chair of Peterborough LCG Board
Dr Paul van den Bent (PvdB)
Vice Chair
Dr Harshad Mistry (HM)
GP Lead Peterborough LCG
Dr Neil Sanders (NS)
GP Lead Peterborough LCG
Dr Mohsin Laliwala (ML)
GP Lead Peterborough LCG
Brian Parsons (BP)
Patient Representative
Rob Bristow (RB)
Nurse Representative
Barbara Cork (BC)
Patient Representative
Gill Metcalf
Healthwatch (Peterborough)
Borderline and Peterborough LCG
Alan Sadler (AS)
Business Manager, Borderline & Peterborough LCGs
Kyle Cliff (KC)
Assistant Director Commissioning & Contracts, Borderline &
Peterborough LCGs
Cath Mitchell (CM)
Local Chief Officer, Borderline & Peterborough LCGs
Louise Jinks (LJ)
Finance Manager, Borderline & Peterborough LCGs
Simon Pitts (SP)
Programme Manager, Borderline & Peterborough LCGs
In Attendance:
Tina Almond (TA)
Borderline Administration Support Officer
Teresa Johnson (TJ)
Peterborough Administration Support Officer
Rebecca Powell (RB)
Business Manager, Yaxley Group Practice
Sarah Shuttlewood (SS)
Agenda Item 1.2, Quarter 3 ARM Accountability Review
Alex Claybrook (AC)
Deloittes, Agenda Item 1.2, Quarter 3 ARM Accountability Review
Kevan Walker (KW)
Agenda Item 1.2, Quarter 3 ARM Accountability Review
Phil McSweeney (PM)
Interim Lead, Agenda Items 1.3 & 1.4 – Draft Diabetes & MSK
Service Specifications 2014/15
Apologies for Borderline LCG Board:
Dr Richard Withers (RW)
Chair, Borderline LCG
Karen McNally (KM)
Practice Manager Representative
1
Apologies for Peterborough LCG Board:
Andy Slater (AS)
Practice Manager Representative
Apologies Borderline & Peterborough
Margaret Osibowale (MO)
System Finance Leave, Borderline & Peterborough LCGs
The Agenda ran in the following order; Item 1.2 followed by Item 1.1, Item 1.2, Item 1.3 and ACTION
Item 1.4
1.
AGENDA ITEM 1 - JOINT MEETING:
BORDERLINE AND PETERBOROUGH LCG BUSINESS
1.1a Minutes of previous meeting held on 7th February 2014
The minutes of the meeting held on Friday 7th February were agreed as an
accurate record.
1.1b Action Log – 7th February 2014
Noted the following actions had been completed; 20 and 23.
1.2
Quarter 3 ARM Accountability Review
Sarah Shuttlewood, Alex Claybrook and Kevan Walker attended for this item.
S Shuttlewood gave an overview of issues and progress for Quarter 3
following the submission of the Borderline & Peterborough self assessment.
S Shuttlewood commented with regard to prescribing/referral management,
progress of the work being undertaken had been noted and informed the
Boards that N Modha was attending a meeting with PSHFT regarding poor
performance against the A&E target. SS to feedback to N Modha any
messages/reflections back to the CCG to be considered with regard to going
forward.
M Caskey and O Stovin to put case forward to the Area Team with regard to
data issues, emphasising how well the LCGs were doing for Borderline &
Peterborough, sharing good news. Referral rates were down by 13% and the
LCGs were no longer going to use RSS.
C Mitchell informed S Shuttlewood that a conversation had been held
between M Caskey, R Withers and herself around gaining best use of clinical
expertise. It had been agreed to use some of the running costs to use an
external agency to support the work and skills of Dr Stovin around analysing
additional data.
An extended PMO role had been approved by the CCG. A Claybrook of
Deloittte’s informed the Board the PMO arrangement was about looking to
strengthen the PMO Office. A team of two would be working with the LCGs to
make sure decisions were being based on the right information and that work
streams and pathways were appropriate and correct. There was a need to
understand what each LCG was doing and make sure communication was
robust and try to standardise governance across the systems. Final business
cases should be sent to managers and we would then look to build up the
programme and infrastructure behind, working with the LCGs with regard to
providing relevant support. The PMO office would look at how work would be
carried out across the whole of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough CCG.
Each locality would be expected to work out how to deliver savings across
their local area, designing a local plan to feed into the CCG project, whilst
2
continuing with local delivery, finance, quality and milestones.
G Howsam asked with regard to referral management, who centrally was
holding to account around RSS.
C Mitchell explained the PMO holds the LCG to account. The PMO
interrogates and escalates up to the Programme Management Board, chaired
by Neil Modha.
Dr Andrew Anderson arrived
M Caskey asked if the LCGs are able to spend a little more of their allocation
for additional management?
If problems occur within our capital projects, can we rely on central support?
How much control do we have over the £1.7m?
M Caskey added that when PLCG had tried to bring some extra support in,
the LCGs had been unable to and this had led to the management approach
within the LCG economy being compromised.
S Shuttlewood responded, there was an element of learning from 2013/14 and
within the first 6 months, there were lots of issues with unrealistic timelines for
the LCGs. In terms of management, the CCG were willing to support and
help LCGs as best they could within the available resources.
O Stovin added that performance across the LCGs was quite variable. There
was no feeling that the CCG was addressing these issues as historic data was
still being utilised. Borderline & Peterborough LCGs would like to review
CCG wide data for performance.
S Shuttlewood said there had been agreement to move towards a fair shares
budget with peer to peer challenge and triangulation of data in order to take
account of the broader picture.
C Mitchell commented with regard to the learning from last year in terms of
the Firm, the service had to be re-established after the pilot service was
stopped and the LCGs lost a lot of activity from a business case point of view,
there were still issues with the management of business cases, the time
frames and signing off/implementation of services.
S Shuttlewood confirmed the Accountability Agreements would be looked at
on 21st March for sign off. A Sadler would be leading on the quick review by
the Borderline & Peterborough LCG Boards to review the Accountability
Agreement.
S Shuttlewood informed the Boards the ‘Fair Shares Allocation’,
communication would be coming out on Monday 10th March and would
include ‘what this means in terms of the QIPP requirement’.
M Caskey commented the Boards agree monies were notional and part of the
CCG pot, but better to have a notional amount which was accurate. The
LCGs currently have vague figures, so it does not seem real. The data needs
to be correct and the QIPP challenge well thought through. LCGs have not
had this detail to date as it has all been historical.
3
S Shuttlewood asked LCGs if they had any issues regarding Prescribing. M
Caskey advised that the Pharmacy Lead is happy to report all practices are
engaged and the general conception was that we had performed very well
against the budget and were achieving with regard to PETs.
S Shuttlewood reported that PSHFT had achieved 3 months out of the 11 this
year for the 95% A&E target. CCG and PSHFT received £5m additional
winter monies. To note that PSHFT did achieve the target November and
December. However performance had since fallen as low as 75/80%. DTOC
had improved and CCS turnaround had improved by 11%.
M Caskey commented there was disappointment around PSHFT being unable
to help with consultant support for the Firm.
G Howsam commented Alison Graham was meeting with PSHFT to work out
what services we could keep within PSHFT and what services we would need
outside PSHFT. The LCGs suggested that more communication to the public
would be required with regard to Minor Injuries services
C Mitchell informed the Boards a discussion had been held at the Urgent Care
Board; agreed
• an Older People’s leaflet would be developed through the
Communications Team with regard to patients over age 75.
• The front door team were to work on looking at community,
• Firm#2, contacts at the hospital to field things through.
• DTOC: it is about the flow of patients through the beds and the flow
through hospital. Internal processes are not working well and
management of breaches was a key area for improvement.
H Mistry commented Ambulatory Care was making good progress and there
was a need to recognise there were inefficiencies and there was a sheer
increase in work load.
A Anderson commented with regard to the OOhrs procurement for 2015, the
Boards agreed to review OOhrs service for Borderline & Peterborough in the
future in order to get the correct local model. The ED foot print was
something that needed to be factored into OOhrs, but more funding would be
required in order to carry this out.
The Boards thanked S Shuttlewood/Alex Claybrook and Kevan Walker for
attending.
1.2A Draft Self Assessment Report
Noting that the draft report should have been discussed at the February
meeting prior to submission to the CCG. (forward planner to be maintained to
ensure timetabled correctly for future)
1.3
Draft Diabetes Service Specification 2014/15
P McSweeney attended the Board for this item.
P McSweeney reported there were a number of issues which had been
recognised with regard to the local community diabetes service arrangements,
4
in summary, these are listed below;
• There was no agreed service specification in place in the contract
between the CCG and CCS (the provider), for the scope and supply of
the Community Specialist Diabetes Service (CDS) headquartered at
the Healthy Living Centre.
• Data about what the CDS service actually did (activity by pathways)
was extremely limited - amounting to counting contacts by the service
only.
• That the referral templates on Pathfinder needed significant overhaul
to be relevant to the pathways in the specification
• That a previously-expressed intention to relocate the Young Person's
Diabetes Service run at PSHFT to the HLC had not been followed up
so was not implemented
• That delivery of diabetes QOF was, for a number of reasons, variable
in B&P and did not compare well with the other LCGs in
Cambridgeshire and Peterborough - and that this could be improved by
the way the CDS was specified and delivered.
Noted there were specific points highlighted at Item 3 of the report presented
with regard to Service Specification, Business Case Considerations, Young
Persons Diabetes Service.
It was recommended the LCGs;
• adopt the new service specification and KPs developed. No additional
investment has been offered or requested to agree this.
• advise on the benefits of running a further DESMOND course every
week and to request business case development. The investment will
be low – a DESMOND course traditionally runs over six hours, either
one full day or two half days, for a group of 10 people who may bring a
carer with them
• advise on development of a business case to support availability of an
additional Diabetes Care Technicians; estimate – 0.25 wte Band 6 for
DESMOND (£12.5k), plus 1 wte Band 4 DCT (£20.5k), plus 22.5% on
costs = £38.5k.
The Board discussed the Draft Diabetes Service Specification 2014/15 and
the following comments were recorded;
G Howsam commented the role of education and diabetes service was key.
The key aspect of treatment in diabetes was around getting patients on the
right track for treatment. A preference was expressed to give money to
practices to deliver the service in-house, but unclear how this would be
achievable.
The Board agreed best option would be education rather than funding
different streams of staff to deliver the service and a acknowledged that
member practices delivered this service differently across the health system.
M Laliwala commented that most practices have in-house expertise.
should be doing the same thing.
We
M Caskey reminded the Boards not to start to talk about their own GP
Practice contracts in this forum. As Board members, the focus should be from
a Board point of view to concentrate on ensuring diabetes patients get the
5
best available service.
A Anderson explained there was only data available by practice and some
practices were not accessing at all. The most important thing was that we
need to provide a consistent service across Borderline & Peterborough
Practices.
C Mitchell reiterated the need to be careful about GP practice business and
LCG business. The CCS contract was from 1st April. The Borderline &
Peterborough LCGs need to make a decision once the business case comes
back to the Boards.
The LCG Boards agreed the three recommendations highlighted above,
although B Fraser had some issues with recommendation 3, but would raise
this separately with P McSweeney outside the meeting.
S Kennedy asked if the service would provide training for HCAs? The Chair
suggested P McSweeney to take back to check with the business case for
detail.
1.4
Draft MSK Service Specification 2014/15
P McSweeney informed the Board there was no report for this item. It was
noted the CCG wide MSK Project Group, Chaired by Nigel Smith
Cambs/Catch was working in two stages.
Stage 1 – was to develop a combined specification for MSK services with
CCS that would apply across all of the systems. This would involve looking at
common themes for the systems. Work was currently on-going and the
service specification was at the first draft stage. More integration was
required and P McSweeney was involved in this piece of work. There was
also additional work to be carried out around pathway redesign, contract
tightening with CCS/PSHFT and Addenbrookes, which would include clinical
thresholds.
Stage 2 – was with regard to exploring what other systems had done around
MSK procurement. P McSweeney proposed looking at Bedford CCG/Oldham
Sheffield CCG Prime vendor models. There would be a capitated budget for
MSK, triage (electives).
Timeframe – recommendations around what
procurement approach should be taken would be going to CMET on 9th April
2014.
M Caskey asked with regard to the model options, when would this come to
the Boards? C Mitchell advised she would bring paper to the Board on 4th
April, once it had been written, and the Boards would be able to feed in, via C
Mitchell, who would verbally update CMET on 9th April.
The Boards requested the specification be circulated prior to the CMET
meeting, as there were areas that needed to be improved, for comment.
Action: Draft MSK Service Specification 2014/15 to be circulated to the
LCG Boards for comment before taking to CMET meeting on 9th April
PMc/CM
2014.
R Bristow and M Bacon left the meeting
Mark Attah reminded that the Boards need to be mindful of the national
6
requirements and guidance.
A Anderson asked whether MSK forms regarding hip and knee could be put
on Pathfinder. There should not reason to delay . Clinical Thresholds are on
Pathfinder. Agreed that the MSK service should use the same process across
the CCG.
C Mitchell reiterated that Pathfinder was a tool and did not determine
thresholds. Public Health agree and review clinical thresholds via committee
which incorporate NICE Guidance.
Andrew Anderson left the meeting
1.5
Medium Term Plan/Financial Recovery Plan Update
L Jinks reported the £5.2m deficit was to be paid back in 2015/16.
To deliver a sustainable financial balance at a realistic and achievable pace,
the over-riding priority was to ensure that the services commissioned were
affordable, safe and of high quality. The plan was based on the following
assumptions;
• QIPP capped at a maximum of 4% in 2014/15 and 2015/16
• 1% non recurrent reserve in 2014/15
• 0.5% contingency plus 0.4% for the £5 per head
• 0.3% for Continuing health care provision
• 1.5% population growth (country wide average)
• Phasing the repayment of 2013/14 deficit in 2016/17
M Caskey asked whether this would change with ‘Fair Shares’. L Jinks
responded yes it would. M Caskey suggested more time could be spent on
this once the numbers were real.
Board commented that it was unclear if 1.5% growth was correct. K Cliff
advised he had reviewed the population growth against the activity.
Next steps as noted on the report.
The LCG Boards thanked L Jinks for the update on the Medium Term
Financial Plan/Financial Recovery Plan/2 Year Development Plan.
1.6
Acute Contract
K Cliff provided a brief summary of the key points and risks, noted below.
The acute contract sign off had lapsed from 28 February. Now working to
potentially 14 March.
•
•
CQUIN: To include all national CQUIN’s plus local proposals for
Medicine Safety Thermometer, Catheter Insertions, 7 day working.
Further work is required on the detail of the local schemes and linking
the payments to outcomes. In addition there is a risk to progress
because of CQC visit at the Trust and availability of Chris Wilkinson
w/c 03/03/14.
Activity Plan: The variance between the trusts proposal and the
contract envelope is a £3.2m gap. The proposal is built up in the
following way:
o 12 month period,
7
•
•
o Costs translated to 14/15 tariff
o Population applied to actual activity at 5 year age band rates.
o Trust service changes and coding changes applied.
o QIPP application.
o CQUIN.
The process and GAP analysis is shown in appendix 1.
QIPP: The current proposal includes 4.7m of QIPP. Contract envelope
target is £6m. The break down of this is shown in the next section.
Next Steps;
• Timetable for additional work set out for CQUIN w/c 03/03/14
• CCG exec meeting on negotiation approach to contract GAP 05/03/14
• Escalation meetings put in place to end of March 14.
• Work undertaken with Deloitte on translation of QIPP programmes into
SDIP to mitigate risk where each organisation does not achieve
milestones.
Conclusion;
• The 3.2m Gap is likely to be reduced by 500 – 800k, however 1m
relates to strong technical application under PBR and the Trust are
unlikely to concede on these areas. The remaining 1.4m relates to the
QIPP. This can be mitigated through the use of controls in the SDIP/
CQUIN but this will not close the gap in its entirety. The Trust are
sticking to a PBR contract and they will not enter into a risk share of
block arrangement
• Further risks for consideration:
o The Benchmarking done by Deloitte shows a lower opportunity
for reducing non elective spends than the current QIPP
schemes are targeting.
o The QIPP removed from the Contract has not been adjusted
for MRET or readmissions.
o The Trust have not agreed with our use of MRET and are likely
to challenge the robustness of delivery of QIPP in the 4.7m.
K Cliff added that the contract would remain under regular review with clear
lines of accountability between all parties.
The LCG Boards thanked K Cliff for providing update on Acute Contract.
K Cliff left the meeting
1.7 Business Manager Update
1.7a Risk Register
A Sadler reported the top three risks for Borderline & Peterborough LCGs
remained the same as last month and asked the Board for any comments.
H Mistry commented with regard to risk B&PPQPS4: workforce risk around
recruitment to medical workforce in Peterborough for both primary/general
practice and secondary care, we need raise the profile of Peterborough when
advertising positions. (Firm#2/OOhrs/MIIU).
M Caskey commented the LCG would probably need to fund. Perhaps we
should draft a list of key personnel and/or vacancies we are short of across
the patch. H Mistry suggested with regard to Peterborough Practices, let Jo
Fallon, Performance and Delivery Officer at PLCG, know so a list can be
8
collated. H Mistry reiterated this was not with regard to practices, it was about
the shortage in attracting clinicians to positions within the Peterborough area.
The Board also noted to be aware of the role of the LMC and that the LCG
could facilitate ideas and note that it was not LCG business to recruit GPs and
clinical staff.
A Sadler and C Mitchell to discuss feasibility of staffing for core projects with
H Mistry to feed in.
Action: A Sadler/C Mitchell/H Mistry to meet to discuss feasibility of
AS/CM/HM
staffing for core projects.
1.7b Board Efficacy
A Sadler informed the Board the paper with regard to Board Efficacy proposed
how future business would be conducted following a joint meeting between
the respective Board Chairs.
The LCGs Board meetings would be held on a separate day to the Joint
Commissioning Forum (JCF) and the Borderline & Peterborough
Transformation Board meetings (TB). This would enable the essential
information from the JCF and TB to be distilled and used more productively in
the LCGs meetings. Borderline are proposing to use the 1st Friday in the
month as a development session following discussions within a recent Board
meeting.
A Sadler recommended the Boards consider the proposed revision and
endorse or amend as appropriate.
Boards to take to their separate meeting to discuss and inform A Sadler of
their decision.
The Boards asked that any changes and additions to dates were given with 68 weeks lead time as cover and locums were already arranged
C Nnochiri left the meeting
Standing Items
1.8 Feedback from the Peterborough Regional Steering Group (meeting held
13th February)
C Mitchell advised that K Cliff had attended the last PRSG Meeting and there
was some discussion on preparation to take forward the Tender with Chris
Mellor on Monday 10th March on next steps and timeframe around the tender.
There will be more of an update next month.
1.9
Quarterly C&B LES Update from Ros Campbell
C Mitchell had received update information from Ros Campbell;
Noted;
• Advice & Guidance – 235 requests to Peterborough hospital, only 32
converted to hospital appointments
• RSS data – running total between 9th December – 27th February, 561
requests had gone through RSS in total. A lot of RSS had gone
through to appointment.
• Choose & Book LES – some practices still show as ‘red’ on the
9
dashboard. The Boards reiterated that a regular update should be
received regarding C&B.
1.10 Older People’s Procurement
C Rowland reported the Older People’s Procurement was now in the public
domain and no longer a confidential item.
The key points were highlighted;
• The recommendations following the ISOS evaluation process (for
which further verbal update will be provided in the meeting)
• The work undertaken to develop the Invitation to Submit Full Solutions
(ISFS) prospectus, including progress on the Mark 2 Outcomes
Framework. Should any member of the Board wish to receive more
detailed information on the developing Outcomes Framework, this can
be provided, and a member of the programme team would be very
pleased to speak with any member who has any questions in this
regard (please contact the Older People’s Lead in the first instance).
• The intention to undertake a period of statutory public consultation in
parallel with the ISFS stage of the procurement process (i.e. running
from March 2014 for 13 weeks). Full details of the consultation
process, timetable, and methodology will be published on the CCG
website.
• The review timeline for the overall procurement in consequence of the
intention to undertake the public consultation at this stage.
• The Clinical Sub-Group of this Board met on 27th February and
scrutinised the detailed papers relating to the above items, and in
particular the recommendations relating to the ISOS evaluation
process and its outcome (in the evaluation and moderation of which
most members of the Clinical Sub-Group had been involved during
January). The Group agreed to support the recommendations (arising
from the ISOS evaluation process) which had already been supported
by the Older People’s Programme Board earlier on the 27th February.
These were in turn passed to the CCG Governing Body on 4th March
where they were formally ratified. In addition, the group raised a
number of comments with regard to the above items which they asked
to be noted and fed back into the ongoing planning for the next stage
of the procurement process.
• The bids received at ISOS were fully evaluated during January, and
the moderation and consolidation across the various work streams
completed in February. As previously noted, the clinical components
of the bids in the Borderline and Peterborough system were evaluated
by members of the Clinical sub-Group, with input from Local Authority
and Patient Representatives.
The ISOS evaluation process
culminated in ‘Board to Board’ interviews with each bidder (Dr Paul
van den Bent, Clinical Lead for Community Services, representing the
Borderline and Peterborough system).
• The ISOS evaluation reduced the number of bidders to three for each
Lot, and these bidders will now be invested to submit further
information to the final ‘ISFS’ round of the procurement. Having been
encouraged to engage widely with organisations and individuals not
involved in the procurement process (GPs, Acute Provides, Social
Care, Housing, 3rd Sector organisations, Patient and Carer Groups,
other NHS providers) it is likely that bidders will continue to do so.
Please therefore note that as previously, and throughout the
procurement process, clinical commissioners who are involved in the
10
•
procurement process, including by virtue of sitting on an LCG Board,
should not meet or speak with any bidders (or indeed potential
partners of bidders in relation got the procurement).
In light of the revised timeline for the Procurement Process, the final
period of evaluation of bids is planned to take place during July/August
2014. Given that it is unlikely to be possible for all members of the
Clinical sub-Group to be involved during this period, the Group hope to
approach one or more additional commissioning GPs to become
involved.
NB – slight update since report was written to the bullet point above;
The timeline has been changed slightly to allow existing members of the Clinical subGroup to be involved during the evaluation of bids taking place during July/August
2014. C Rowland is also exploring wider engagement with GPs.
The Boards noted a media release had gone out on 6th March with regard to
‘Bidders shortlisted for Older People’s Healthcare and Adult Community
Services Contract’.
The four organisations that had been shortlisted in Cambridgeshire and
Peterborough CCG’s tendering process for improving older people’s
healthcare and adult community services were;
• Accord Health (Interserve with Provider, formerly Central Essex
Community Services and North Essex Partnership Foundation Trust
as Mental health Lead)
• Care for Life (Care UK with Lincolnshire Community Health Services
NHS Trust and Norfolk Community Health and Care NHS Trust)
• Uniting Care Partnership (Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS
Foundation Trust with Cambridge University Hospitals NHS
Foundation Trust)
• Virgin Care Ltd
The above organisations would now go through to the next stage of the
Integrated Older People’s Pathway and Adult Community Services
procurement process during which they would develop and refine the initial
proposals submitted in January 2014.
Dr Van den Bent advised practices would be able to participate and engage
via an event organised by the LMC in May.
B Parsons shared his positive experiences with the Older People’s
Programme.
The LCG Boards thanked C Rowland for the update around the Older
People’s Procurement process.
1.11 Planning and delivering service changes for patients
The LCG Boards noted the information with regard to the above.
1.12 Borderline & Peterborough Quality Exception Report (Feb 2014)
The LCG Boards noted the Quality Exception Report for February 2014.
11
1.13 Any other Business
Hydrotherapy
C Mitchell highlighted the LCG Boards discussed Hydrotherapy as a treatment
option through the MSK pathway for a limited group of Patients. It had come
to light there were issues with regard to the building where the service was
delivered from. Both Boards were committed to hydrotherapy where there
was a clinical need based on NICE through the MSK pathway. The council
wish to put funding into St George’s temporarily but if anything major happens
to the building, they would not invest any further money.
C Mitchell informed the Boards in looking at the longer term plans, if we were
using as a treatment option and it could be provided at St George’s in the
short term, would the LCG Boards be willing to consider costs/treatment in
addition to funds provided by the Peterborough City Council? Would the LCG
Boards be happy for further work to be carried out with regard to what funding
might be needed around the number of sessions of treatment. The LCG
Boards should consider whether there was a case to be considered for people
with long term conditions who may actually benefit from regular hydrotherapy
to keep themselves mobile within their limitations.
A Anderson felt there may be a case in certain long term conditions where we
as a Board may wish to consider whether hydrotherapy would help. The
Boards would need to consider whether the treatment was as a preventative
option.
Physiotherapist to provide list of conditions, which could then feed into the
MSK pathway. C Mitchell reiterated no extra money would be required as the
service would be the same already agreed at a previous Board meeting.
The LCG Boards to determine sum of the treatment options. Carry forward to
next agenda. (Action April agenda)
Children’s Safeguarding Lead – Boards agreed to recruit to post a children’s
safeguarding lead, requested by the Safeguarding Team. C Mitchell had
raised the possibility of this being a nurse to take on the lead role.
Action:
CM initially to take to the Borderline & Peterborough
Safeguarding leads, to ask if anyone would be interested in taking on
the role of Children’s Safeguarding Lead.
Board Members – It was noted that both Neil Sanders and Andrew Anderson
were resigning as Board members as at end of March. Formal thanks were
given by the LCG Boards for the work undertaken during their tenure as Board
members.
There being no further business, the Joint LCG meeting closed at 4.30 pm.
Contact Details:
Borderline LCG
Name: Tina Almond
Email: tina.almond@cambridgeshireandpeterboroughccg.nhs.uk
Telephone: 01733 704452
Peterborough LCG
Name: Teresa Johnson
Email: teresa.johnson@cambridgeshireandpeterboroughccg.nhs.uk
Telephone: 01733 758518
12
CM