The Head of Scrutiny and Member Development
submitted a report introducing the questions posed to the
JCPCT by the Joint Health Overview and
Scrutiny Committee (JHOSC), and seeking
agreement of any specific matters for inclusion in the
Committee’s report to be presented to the JCPCT later in the year.
Members were informed that a representative of
the JCPCT had agreed to attend a
meeting of the JHOSC, which would be
held on Thursday 22nd September 2011. Members who would
not be available to attend that meeting were asked to submit any
questions they wished to be put to the JCPCT’s representative.
It was agreed that the following questions
should be put to the JCPCT:
- The response from Sir Neil MacKay
stated that Leeds has a relatively low caseload, however the
Kennedy report stated that Leeds has long waiting lists. Can you
explain this inconsistency?;
- Why was a review of adult congenital
heart surgery not undertaken in conjunction with the
children’s review? This would have made sense given the
increasing number of adult procedures, and the fact that the same
surgeons operate on both children and adults. It is not acceptable
that decisions will have already been made regarding paediatric
provision, before the review of adult provision is undertaken;
- The response from Jeremy
Glyde states that consultation will be
undertaken in relation to adult services only if significant
changes are recommended. What is meant by
‘significant’?;
- The response from Sir Neil MacKay
states that there are gaps in compliance in the Yorkshire and
Humber cardiac network. Can you provide details on where those gaps
are?;
- It is unacceptable to refuse to
provide the breakdown of assessment scores to the JHOSC because the JCPCT
does not want to see them. Under what authority is this information
being withheld? Has the JCPCT been
authorised to carry out confidential work?;
- If the Leeds centre was closed, the
population of North East Lincolnshire (160,000) would be the most
disadvantaged in terms of urban areas. What provisions are in place
to deal with this?; and
- What financial assistance would be
provided to families who were subject to increased travelling costs
as a result of the review?
Members also discussed any issues that should
be raised in the Committee’s final report to the JCPCT. It was agreed that the following points
should be covered:
- The formula used to determine the
required number of centres is too simple and does not take account
of all the relevant factors;
- The lack of reference to the support
that will be required by families who will have to travel further
as a result of the review;
- Concerns that if the Leeds centre
was closed, ambulance costs for the Yorkshire and Humber region
would increase dramatically;
- The results of the review of adult
provision should be known before any changes are made as a result
of the review of paediatric provision;
- Concerns that the impact of adverse
travelling conditions (adverse weather, etc.) has not been taken
into account;
- Concerns that under options A, B and
C, somewhere in Yorkshire and Humber would be disadvantaged;
- A proposal should be put forward to
keep eight centres open, including Leeds, Newcastle and
Southampton. Members agreed that it would be favourable to keep
both Leeds and Newcastle open rather than one or the other, and
that Southampton should be kept open as people living on the Isle
of Wight would be disadvantaged if it was closed. It was therefore
agreed that the proposed option D should be supported, with the
addition of the Newcastle and Southampton centres;
- Detail regarding areas of
deprivation in Yorkshire and Humber, and the links with health
inequalities should be included in the report. It was confirmed
that information had been requested from Government Office
Yorkshire and Humber regarding this issue; and
- The outcome of local consultations
and petitions should be included in the report.
Members were informed that a first
draft of the Committee’s report would be circulated by
Thursday 22nd September at the latest. There would then
be the opportunity to agree a final version at the
Committee’s meeting on Thursday 29th
September.
It was also agreed that the Secretary
of State should be written to again, requesting a response prior to
29th September. It was also agreed that the
Committee’s concerns regarding the consultation process
should be raised, including the reluctance of the JCPCT to meet with the Committee, and the refusal
to release the breakdown of assessment scores, especially because
it was not made clear that this information would not be made
available at the start of the consultation process.
It was reported that a response had
been received from two of the region’s MPs, and that they
would be provided to Members (along with any other responses
received in the meantime) with the agenda for the meeting to be
held on Thursday 22nd September 2011.
RESOLVED:
(a)
That the questions listed above be put to the representative of the
JCPCT at the Committee’s meeting
on Thursday 22nd September 2011;
(b)
That the issues listed above be raised in the Committee’s
report to the JCPCT; and
(c)
That a second letter be sent to the Secretary of State, requesting
a response by 22nd September and raising the
Committee’s concerns in relation to the consultation
process.