Agenda item

To receive and consider the attached report

The report of the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development informed Members of the contact that had been made with the JCPCT and the Safe and Sustainable Team.  As had been previously reported, there would be no representation from the JCPCT or Safe and Sustainable team at this meeting.

Cathy Edwards of the Yorkshire and Humber Specialised Commissioning Group (SCG) was in attendance for this item and gave the Committee an overview of some of the work that had been recently published in respect of the review for children’s congenital heart services, namely the Health Impact Assessment and the IPSOS Mori public consultation.  Further issues reported included the following:

• All trusts had been asked to report on capacity planning and any constraints or restraints there would be from taking n additional work.
• Analysis of how much work Leeds would take from other areas was now being analysed and would be fed to the JCPCT in October or November.
• Work surrounding the Central Cardiac Audit Database – this gave more up to date figures on the likely number of procedures to be carried out.
• Work that was currently being carried out by Price, Waterhouse & Cooper in respect of patient flow.  This looked at 18 postcode areas nationally, 8 of which were in Yorkshire and the Humber.  This information would be fed to the JCPCT in November.
• The judicial review relating to Royal Brompton Hospital – an initial hearing had been held and there was to be a full hearing in September.
• There was an expectation of responses from Overview and Scrutiny Committee’s to submit responses by 5 October to be fed into the JCPCT meetings in October and November.
• The Clinical Advisory Group was to meet in September and would be looking at Children’s Cardiac Services and Co-location.

In response to Members comments and questions, the following issues were discussed:

• The JCPCT was due to meet on 25 October and 17 November when the final decision on the options was exected.
• It was felt to be unacceptable that the scrutiny responses had to be submitted by 5 October when information such as the patient flow analysis had not yet been completed.  An interim report on this was due in the last week of September.
• The review of the impact on other services at Royal Brompton was being carried out due to the judicial review and to look at the overall sustainability of the hospital.
• The results of the patient flow analysis were critical to the Yorkshire and Humber region as all the other options would increase travelling time for the majority of residents.  It was felt that to not have this information this was against the interest of open and accountable decision making.
• If the Judicial Review ruled in favour of Royal Brompton Hospital it was likely that the whole process would have to be reconsidered.
• It was felt that the process was flawed when information such as the patient flow analysis was not available.  This could have significant impact on the options available and other options may have been developed in light of this knowledge.
• The Yorkshire and Humberside SCG had previously expressed concerns regarding the assumptions on projected numbers, as had other SCGs across the country, and this was part of the reason that the work on patient flow analysis was being carried out.  It was regrettable that this information was not yet available.
• The basis for a centre to have the capacity to carry out 400 procedures a year was a clinical decision.  It was also based on requiring 4 surgeons, one of which would be available 24 hours a day all year round.
• The JCPCT meeting in November was planned to be held publicly.
• Any organisation could seek judicial review and there were other methods of appeal including going to an Independent Review Panel.
• There was a strong argument that Leeds should have been given more consideration on population density.  14 million people live within a 2 hour drive of the city.

RESOLVED – That the report and discussion be noted.