Agenda item

Review of Children's Congenital Heart Services in England: Feedback from Other Key Stakeholders

To receive and consider the attached report

Minutes:

The report of the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development presented the Committee with details of a range of views expressed by other key stakeholders including Hospital Trusts, BME communities and the general public.

 

The following were in attendance for this item:

 

  • Judith Huntley – Cardiac Nurse, LTHT
  • Elspeth Brown – Consultant Cardiologist, LTHT
  • Kevin Watterson – Paediatric Cardiac Surgeon, LTHT and Children’s Heart Surgery Fund (CHSF) Trustee
  • Lois Brown – Parent

 

The following key issues were raised:

 

  • Leeds could carry out the 400 required procedures now, but would require another surgeon.  Recruitment was not possible whilst the review was ongoing.
  • The role and work of the CHSF.
  • Leeds was one of only 2 centres in the country with fully co-located services.
  • Mrs Brown gave the Committee an overview of her experiences and the difficulties she would face and would have faced if there was no provision in Leeds.
  • The potential impact on cardiac services if cardiac surgery was carried out elsewhere.
  • The loss of continual services from childhood through to adulthood as currently available in Leeds.

 

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

 

  • The figure for 400 procedures was based on having a centre with 4 surgeons.
  • It was felt the findings of the Ipsos/MORI survey were predictable due to the nature of the questions and the complicated nature of the survey.
  • Lasting effects when mothers and babies are separated at birth.
  • Cost effects on families having to make long journeys – CHSF did make contributions in some cases, the reality often meant less visiting.
  • All networks across the country were given the same score in the proposed options even though Leeds was classed as exemplary.
  • Further concern that the decisions were taken by a non-democratic process.  The JCPCT did not represent the people concerned.

 

RESOLVED – That the report and discussion be noted.

 

 

Supporting documents: