Agenda and draft minutes

None.

The Chair will consider the admission of any late items of urgent business. Where the item is already included on the agenda, it will appear under that item but new items of urgent business will be dealt with at item 6 .

None.

A member with a personal interest in a matter who attends a meeting of the authority at which the matter is considered must disclose to that meeting the existence and nature of that interest at the commencement of that consideration, or when the interest becomes apparent.

A member with a personal interest in a matter also has a prejudicial interest in that matter if the interest is one which a member of the public with knowledge of the relevant facts would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the member's judgment of the public interest and if this interest affects their financial position or the financial position of a person or body as described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct and/or if it relates to the determining of any approval, consent, licence, permission or registration in relation to them or any person or body described in paragraph 8 of the Code of Conduct.

None.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 17 December 2009.

AGREED:

That the minutes of the meeting of 17 December be confirmed.

To receive an update from Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust (MHT) on their current consultation on the reconfiguration of adult acute mental health services within the Borough including:

·        The proposals and their implications for service users and carers;

·        Relevant supporting statistical information;

·        The consultation process;

Copies of the full consultation document, the short easy read document and the consultation plan are attached.

Andrew Wright, from Barnet, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust (MHT), provided an update on the consultation that was being undertaken on the reconfiguration of adult acute services within the Borough.  The proposal had been reviewed by the National Clinical Advisory Team (NCAT).  It had been subject to this process as part of a pre-consultation review undertaken by NHS London.  This was necessary in all cases where an overview and scrutiny committee had designated a proposal to be a “substantial variation” to local services.  NHS London had now given its approval for the consultation to proceed. 

The consultation document had been circulated and a series of public meetings arranged and publicised. This would include meetings with carers and service users.  The feedback was being submitted to an independent external organisation who would report back on the outcome.

The proposed changes were about improving services and increasing investment for providing services in community settings.  The MHT was of the view that home treatment was a better option for many people.  This was recognised national policy.  The policy was not new and many parts of the country operated with a similar model of care.  All of the staff affected directly by the proposals would be re-allocated to either the home treatment teams or other wards. 

Services provided by the MHT had improved and the average length of stay had gone down from 76 to 32 days.  This was due to a large extent to improvements in processes.  There was now less demand for beds and one male ward at St Ann’s Hospital had been temporarily closed. There was currently no difficulty in accommodating male patients who needed beds.  It was recognised that there were significant concerns about the proposed changes but these were not concerned with the policy but its implementation.  In response to these, he stated that:

·        Improvements were being made to support carers.  This included the provision of a carer’s assessment for everyone.

·        Home treatment would be undertaken in partnership with carers.  If the carer was not able to cope, the patient would be admitted to hospital.

It was noted that there had been concerns expressed by other agencies. It was emphasised that the changes only affected acute patients.  They would receive the same care from the same staff but in a different setting.  Patients would be visited several times a day and would still be treated as a priority.  The MHT did not believe that the proposals had significant implications for other agencies.  

Lisa Redfern, Assistant Director of Adult Services, reported that the overall direction of travel was welcome.  However, there had not yet been many opportunities to discuss the potential impact (financial/performance/practice perspective) of the proposals.  She did not concur with the view that the proposals would have no impact on partners.  The infrastructure necessary to support the changes needed to be put in place and this took a lot of prior planning. The proposals were likely to impact on the Adult Services budget and there was a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.

To consider any items of business admitted at item 2 above.

None.