Agenda and minutes

Health Scrutiny Panel - Thursday, 12th January, 2017 2.00 pm

Venue: Committee Room 3 - Civic Centre, St Peter's Square, Wolverhampton WV1 1SH

Contact: Deborah Breedon  Tel: 01902 551250 or Email:

No. Item




There were no apologies for absence.


Declarations of Interest


There were no declarations of interest.


Minutes of previous meeting pdf icon PDF 84 KB

[To approve the minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record.]



Resolved:That the minutes of the previous meeting be agreed as a correct record.


Matters Arising

[To consider any matters arising from the minutes.]



The Chair confirmed that as referred to on page 6 of the minutes that an update would be provided later on the agenda in relation to the Mental Health Strategy.


The Chair also confirmed that she was working with Officers to produce a training session and that further information would be provided to members in due course.


Governance Review of the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust pdf icon PDF 569 KB

[Report to be presented by Jeremy Vanes, Chairman of the Trust].


The Chair welcomed Jeremy Vanes , Chair of the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust to the meeting.  Mr Vanes introduced the Deolitte Report and outlined the context within which the review had been carried out.  Mr Vanes explained that the Trust was run by a unitary board which consisted of 7 voting non-executive directors and 5 voting executive directors. The purpose of the Board was to set strategy, influence the culture, deal with higher level accountability and intelligence gathering.  A review was carried out approximately every 2 to 3 years.


The recent report showed that performance was considered to be sound at the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust but that following an inspection by the QCC the previous year that improvement could still be made in some areas. Mr Vanes confirmed that the Trust was still making a surplus. The Trust currently employed over 8000 staff, covered over 20 sites and 3 hospitals and had a turnover in excess of half a billion pounds. 


Mr Vanes stated that several of the directors had been interviews more than once and that he had faced around 5 hours of interviews. External stakeholders had also been interviewed including MPs, representatives from Health Watch and previous Trust employees.


The report was on the whole very positive and included good feedback in relation to both the Chairman and the Chief Executive. Mr Vanes highlighted the fact that the report praised the high level of clinical involvement and engagement in the trust which was not seen across other organisations and which influenced the overarching culture, strategy and awareness.  The report also highlighted the extensive training opportunities and awareness training carried out by the trust.


Regarding weaknesses the report did refer to the fact that the non-executive members were not as visible across the organisation as the executive members. Mr Vanes stated that this was in part because the non-executive members were often part time but that he was looking into this matter.


Mr Vanes stated that the Trust was also looking to include more non executive members on sub committees to increase their participation in policy development and that the Trust was looking to keep non executive members for longer terms and looking to create some new associate non executive posts (including a post for a GP if possible). Mr Vanes did consider that the Trust needed to consider succession planning as the current Chief Executive was one of the longest serving in the country.


Members thanked Mr Vanes for his presentation.


A comment was raised in relation to page 49 of the report which referred to partnership working and training.  Mr Laughton stated that the trust was currently dealing with 2 STP plans and therefore there needed to be partnership working. Mr Laughton stated that his primary concern was for the people of Wolverhampton and that some of the criticism in the report stemmed from the fact that this priority could be seen as detrimental to residents in other areas. Mr Laughton stated that he was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.


NHS Learning Disability In-patient provision at Pond Lane Hospital pdf icon PDF 67 KB

[Sarah Fellows, Wolverhampton Clinical Commissioning Group, to present report]

Additional documents:


The Panel received a report from Sarah Fellows, Wolverhampton Clinical Commissioning Group, to provide members of the Health Scrutiny Panel with an update regarding the NHS Learning Disability In-patient provision at Pond Lane Hospital including the outcome of the consultation and agreement by Wolverhampton Clinical Commissioning Committee and Governing Body to relocate services.


 A Report relating to Pond Lane had originally been considered by the Panel in April 2016 prior to the commencement of the consultation.


Formal consultation had then taken place between 4th July 2016 and 22nd August 2016, following a period of pre-engagement. The recommendations arising from the consultation centred on the need to consider transport and support families to be able to make appropriate arrangements when visiting their family member.


Following the outcome of the consultation, it was recommended to Wolverhampton CCG Commissioning Committee and Governing Body that Wolverhampton did not continue to offer a local inpatient service. This recommendation was formally agreed by the CCG on 8 November 2016.




That the Health Scrutiny Panel note the outcome of the consultation regarding the closure of inpatient services on the Pond lane site, and the relocation of the inpatient services to alternative provision in Dudley, Sandwell and Walsall.


Update on Adult Mental Health Strategy pdf icon PDF 582 KB

[This report will be sent to follow]


The Panel received a presentation from Sarah Fellows, Wolverhampton Clinical Commissioning Group in relation to the Mental Health Strategy.


The Panel praised the current Street Triage Service and concerns were reinforced regarding the links between people drinking and suffering a crisis. The concerns centred on the fact that the Triage Service was not able to treat people who had been drinking and that in most cases patients were taken to Newcross Accident and Emergency until they were sober following which they often left before any additional treatment could be provided. The Panel agreed that it was very hard to assess a person when they had been drinking and were pleased to hear that additional beds were being considered in the area.


The Panel were pleased that the Strategy presented appeared to be ambitious and good and hoped that the resources would be provided for it to be delivered.


Miss Fellows stated that the CCG would have to be able to show NHS England how the money was being spent and prove that the priorities were being met including in relation to parity of esteem. Trisha Curran from the CCG agreed that the Strategy was aspirational but also manageable, effective and would help to transform the service.


The Panel agreed that they would need to monitor the implementation of the Strategy and requested that an update be brought back in 12 months. Miss Fellows agreed and stated that there were many performance measures that could be provided in order for the Panel to assess progress.  Miss Fellows stated that she could also provide information in recruitment and appointments and provide some case studies where appropriate.


Members queried progress in relation to concerns previously raised regarding mental health crisis incidents affecting people whilst in police custody. Miss Fellows stated that she was only aware of one such incident and that there was currently a very good relation with the Police.


The Director for Public Health stated that substance misuse and mental health was a very hard issue to crack but that they continued to try and support people and provide a seamless treatment. It was however still debatable as to whether the mental health problem or the substance abuse problem should be treated the first instance and that a pathway between the two services needed to be put into place. A steering group had been set up to look at this issue.




That an update report including performance measure and indicators be brought back to the Panel in 12 months.




Work Plan pdf icon PDF 58 KB

[To consider the work plan and any additional upcoming issues]


A copy of the updated work plan was circulated and Members were requested to feedback any ideas for future topics to the Scrutiny Manager.