Agenda and draft minutes

To receive any apologies for absence

Apologies for absence were submitted from Councillor Stephen Conway, Nick Fellows, Councillor Rebecca Margetts, Dr Debbie Millgan, Matt Pope and Sarah Webster (substituted by Matthew Tait)

To confirm the Minutes of the Meeting held on 11 July 2024.

The Minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 11 July 2024 were confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

To receive any declarations of interest

There were no declarations of interest.

To answer any public questions

A period of 30 minutes will be allowed for members of the public to ask questions submitted under notice.

The Council welcomes questions from members of the public about the work of this Board.

Subject to meeting certain timescales, questions can relate to general issues concerned with the work of the Board or an item which is on the Agenda for this meeting.  For full details of the procedure for submitting questions please contact the Democratic Services Section on the numbers given below or go to www.wokingham.gov.uk/publicquestions

There were no public questions.

To answer any member questions

There were no Member questions.

To receive the Wellbeing Board Annual Report.

The Board received the Wellbeing Board Annual Report.

During the discussion of this item, the following points were made:

·       Ingrid Slade thanked the partner organisations for their contributions to the production of the report.  The format had moved from a narrative approach to a report that focused on the Board’s strategic aims and objectives as set out in the Strategy into Action.  It was noted that the structure aligned with the sub groups which reported into the Wellbeing Board, each of which had completed a reporting template based on the existing year’s aims and objectives and introducing those for the following year.

·       A dashboard would be developed.  Karen Buckley indicated that the partnership group leads would be asked to present at a Steering Group meeting for further discussion on the development of the dashboard.

·       Susan Parsonage asked how the quality of the engagement had impacted on the development of the report, and actions to be taken going forwards.  Ingrid Slade responded that the delivering on the strategic objectives by the reporting partnership groups, had been strengthened.  There was a lot of commitment amongst the different organisations to deal with Wokingham specific issues.  Whilst there was still work to do focus had improved.  Identifying the ambition of the groups and the current position would help to demonstrate the impact made to residents.

·       Susan Parsonage commented that having the right person representing an organisation could help with decision making.  Karen Buckley emphasised that the partnership groups had worked together to identify measurable outcomes, and would be developing this into a dashboard.  This would help to measure overall success and also identify groups within the population that needed to be targeted for action.

·       Ingrid Slade stated there would likely be some consolidation of groups in the future, but the Board would be kept updated of any changes.

RESOLVED: That

1)    the Wellbeing Board Annual Report be noted.

2)    the list of indicators that will be taken forward into the new Health and Wellbeing Board Dashboard, be noted.

To receive the RBH NHS Foundation Trust Update.

Andrew Statham provided an update on the RBH NHS Foundation Trust.

During the discussion of this item, the following points were made:

·       There had been reduced industrial action during the period since the Board’s previous update.  A full elective programme had been run and over 10% more activity since pre pandemic, had been run on a month-by-month basis.  Whilst there were still improvements to be made with regards to waiting times for some of the elective services, waiting times were generally more favourable compared with near and national benchmarks.

·       The most pressing issue was financial pressures.  A very challenging financial settlement had been received at the start of the year.  Increasing demand and cost pressures, particularly around supply, contributed to this financial challenge.  There was a focus on efficiencies opportunities.

·       It was noted that the New Hospital programme was subject to a national review following a change in government.  The review would consider a range of options including a narrower programme and different ways of securing the funding to undertake the entire programme.  Review conclusions were expected in line with October’s budget.  Currently the Trust was proceeding with measures that had already begun. 

·       The Board was informed of the consultation regarding potential different sites for a new hospital.  Approximately 8,500 people had responded to the consultation, which was very positive.

·       Provisional demand and capacity work had been received from the New Hospital team, which had built a national model of hospitals, highlighting where opportunities might be and how big hospitals would need to be.  Work would need to be undertaken to understand the implications of this model, and what could be achieved across the health and care system to support people coming out of hospital.  This would involve joint working across the system.

·       Councillor Bray asked about staff morale in light of the ongoing financial pressures and the uncertainty around the New Hospital programme.  Andrew Statham responded that it was a challenging time, but work was being undertaken to support staff and positive results had been seen from the staff survey. 

RESOLVED:  That the RBH NHS Foundation Trust update be noted.

To receive the ICB Annual Report.

The Board considered the NHS Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire & Berkshire West Integrated Care Board Annual Report 2023/24.

During the discussion of this item, the following points were made:

·       Matthew Tait indicated that it was the second full year of the operation of the ICB.  Progress had been made, the ICB Strategy had been developed across the system and the Joint Forward Plan had been published.

·       It had been a difficult year in terms of performance.  Industrial action had also impacted on the achievement of key performance metrics.

·       Nevertheless, there had been some success in reducing long wait times, particularly at a local level. 

·       The urgent care system had remained challenged in terms of performance across the system.  Matthew Tait commented that a lot of good work had been undertaken around the development of the out of hospital model.

·       The Board was informed that some good progress had been made around community pharmacy and community dental commissioning. 

·       Matthew Tait commented that it had been a difficult year financially and the ICB had ended the year with a financial deficit position, which would have ongoing consequences.

·       Progress was being made regarding elective waits.  The national ambition was for zero.  This would likely be achieved in some areas of the footprint by the end of September, but not all.

·       The ICB were working closely with the RBH NHS Foundation Trust on winter preparedness planning.

·       Councillor Bray stressed that she was not criticising any individuals within the ICB.  With regards to the presentation of the report, she questioned whether the structure of the report and what information should be included, was prescribed.  She was of the view that the report was hard to read and was very data heavy, making it difficult to determine what information was particularly important.  It was challenging to identify information specifically relevant to Wokingham Borough.  Councillor Bray suggested that less use of NHS ‘buzz words’, and the addition of a highlight report and a glossary would help to increase engagement with the report.

·       Councillor Bray went on to state that the report was quite internally focused, and that whilst there had undoubtedly been a lot of activity, it was less clear as to the impact that this activity had, had on the wider community.

·       Councillor Bray was of the view that the ICB was trying to achieve a lot in very constrained and difficult circumstances, however, the outside world appeared to be an afterthought.   She referred to the current reorganisation consultation, and stated that the Wellbeing Board had only been engaged with at the end of the process.  Sharing with partners could be greatly improved.

·       With regards to performance, Councillor Bray commented that it was difficult to interpret the data.  Some information was presented at a BOB level, and others in a different manner.  This reduced the ability to focus on the Wokingham locality.  Having to consider data on a wider footprint sometimes masked issues that were important to a specific local area.  Councillor Bray referred to the hospital at home  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

To receive the Joint Capital Resources Plan.

The Board considered the Joint capital resource use plan – 2024/25.

During the discussion of this item, the following points were made:

·       Matthew Tait stated that the Plan was primarily organisational focused.  The Board was informed that whilst Primary Care was referenced, Primary Care developments were not technically capital spend.  Matthew Tait outlined what elements the capital plan covered.

·       Matthew Tait highlighted the risk around capital availability and the impact that, that had on services across BOB.

·       Councillor Bray expressed sympathy around the level of the maintenance backlog, a lot of which was high risk.  Partners needed to support the ICB in seeking additional funding.  She emphasised that services could not be fully delivered with inadequate estates.

·       Matthew Tait commented that there was greater opportunity for innovation in Primary Care as there was less reliance on capital funding.

·       Councillor Bray referred to the difficulties for local authorities in building new developments and insufficient health infrastructure to support them.  She emphasised the importance of working together to address this.

RESOLVED:  That the Joint capital resource use plan – 2024/25 be noted.

To consider the Board’s work programme for the remainder of the municipal year.

The Committee discussed the forward programme for remainder of the municipal year.

During the discussion of this item, the following points were made:

·       Matthew Tait proposed that the Board receive a regular update from the ICB.

·       It was requested that a response to the points raised by Councillor Bray regarding the ICB annual report, be provided.

·       The Board agreed to discuss at a private meeting, how the metrics referred to in the Wellbeing Board Annual Report could be developed.  Ingrid Slade suggested that a future Steering Group meeting would be a good opportunity for such a discussion.

·       Emma Cockerell proposed that the Safeguarding Partnership Annual Report be considered at the January meeting.

RESOLVED: That the forward programme be noted.