Ruth Donaldson, Director of Communities at the NCL
ICB, introduced this item, noting that further funds had been
allocated since the previous overview that had been provided to the
Committee 18 months previously. The original purpose of the scheme
had been to develop innovative solutions to health inequalities and
some details of the schemes had been provided in the
pack.
The schemes highlighted included:
- The
‘Supporting People with Severe & Multiple
Disadvantage’ scheme (Haringey) aimed at working with people
with compounding inequalities (for example because of their ethnic
background or their employment/housing status) and poor health
outcomes. The scheme worked across services to offer proactive
wraparound care with a small cohort of people which led to a
reduction of 800 A&E attendances.
- The
‘Peer Support for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention’
scheme (Barnet) connected people of South Asian, African and
Caribbean heritage and had led to reductions in blood
pressure.
-
The ‘Black Health Improvement Programme’
(Enfield) had included cultural competency training for GPs and the
feedback had been positive.
Ruth
Donaldson commented that the wider lessons learnt from the
programme had included that resources were allocated at NCL level
but then Borough Partnerships determined how it was spent based on
their local insights and understanding which had led to more
collaborative and innovative solutions. In addition, the learning
from the co-production and community empowerment work could be
applied across the system in future, included by monitoring the
level of equity in all standard measures and making the best use of
limited resources in decision making.
Ruth
Donaldson then responded to question from the Committee:
- Cllr Connor
observed that this approach appeared to tie in with the Population
Health Strategy for NCL. Ruth Donaldson agreed that there was a
definite alignment, noting that the Population Health Strategy had
five areas and that they were keen to improve outcomes through the
delivery part of the strategy and by spending resource in the areas
of highest need.
- Cllr Clarke
referred to the smoking cessation programme and asked whether the
issue of vaping and young people was being incorporated into the
programme. Ruth Donaldson said that this had not yet come forward
as a particular need and the evidence in this area appeared to be
limited. However, she added that a key part of the scheme was about
listening to local populations, including young people, about their
priorities and then bringing in national evidence and local public
health data to determine the use of resources.
- Cllr Cohen
noted that the funding for some of the projects was time limited
and asked for clarification on the funding situation at the end of
those time periods. Ruth Donaldson explained that there were
different reasons why schemes might finish. Some schemes came to
end because they could not provide evidence of the intended
outcomes. Others were time limited because they had completed
certain objectives, such as the project on autism in Camden which
aimed to bring lived experience expertise into the development of
mental health strategies.
- Cllr Cohen
referred to the table in the report which listed Barnet separately
as part of NCL rather than receiving allocations as an individual
area as was the case with the other Boroughs. He added that there
were significant pockets of deprivation in Barnet and suggested
that this needed to be addressed through the fund. Ruth Donaldson
explained that 70% of the fund was linked to deprivation, based on
the 20% most deprived wards, and that this criteria did not apply
to wards in Barnet. However, the remaining 30% of the fund applied
to NCL-wide schemes which did include Barnet and a focus on pockets
of deprivation and other areas of particular need.
- Cllr
Revah asked what projects were in place
to support the disabled community and requested further details
about engagement through the community empowerment and co-design
process, including organisations covering issues such as youth
justice and food poverty, as set out in the report. Ruth Donaldson
said that there was not a specific project aimed at this community
directly but that this was dependent on the networks in each
Borough and the needs that were identified. There had been
involvement with groups such as the Carers Forum on the needs of
carers and other organisations were represented in groups such as
the Enfield Inequalities Delivery Group which looked at the
interdependencies and outcomes by protected characteristics
associated with conditions such as diabetes. There had been a
particular emphasis on engaging with the highest risk populations.
The Community Powered Edmonton scheme was an example of local
voluntary and community organisations working alongside statutory
services to understand the needs of under-served
communities.
- Asked by Cllr
Chowdhury about engagement with a diverse range of community
groups, Ruth Donaldson said one of the approaches used was to
ensure that funding was guaranteed for at least two years if
outcomes were met. There had also been work with the communications
team to focus more on producing videos in a range of languages
which was more likely to reach people than the translation of
leaflets.
- Cllr Connor
asked how the commissioning of projects had changed based on the
recent learning about what had not worked so well. Ruth Donaldson
said that one of the biggest challenges had been on the length of
time to recruit staff from under-served communities. This had
included difficulties in recruiting from the eastern European and
Kurdish communities for the smoking cessation and cancer screening
projects. Where recruitment was successful, the benefits in
outcomes did come through, but in areas where recruitment had been
too difficult it had been necessary to look at alternative uses for
the resource. The two-year funding guarantee that was previously
mentioned had been introduced as a way of improving the situation
for smaller community groups.
- Asked by Cllr
Connor for further details about the process of partnership working
and the evaluation work in this area being conducted by Middlesex
University, Ruth Donaldson said that, in some cases, a large number
of bids were received for relatively small pots of money. The local
insight and innovation of Borough Partnerships was therefore
important in helping to determine the best use of resource. The
Middlesex University evaluation was looking at 10 projects selected
due to the good levels of co-production. This involved an
overarching steering group with various organisations contributing
to the debate with discussion over different methods of
co-production.
-
Cllr Connor noted that the recent NHS Confederation
report, ‘Unlocking the NHS’s social and economic
potential’ was referenced in the agenda papers and observed
that this emphasised stronger partnership work which could impact
on areas such as housing and food poverty. She asked if this
approach would be embedded in the next set of projects and on what
the likely funding situation was likely to be. Ruth Donaldson
agreed that a greater understanding of the wider determinants of
health and root causes of health inequalities was the right
direction of travel in this area. There was also a focus on the
best use of limited resources with interventions such as smoking
cessation typically providing a greater return on investment than
secondary care interventions. This needed to be based on local
insight as well as public health data.
Cllr
Revah proposed a recommendation that
there should be more focus on people with disabilities in the next
set of projects as they faced a high level of health inequalities
which had not been addressed in the report. This recommendation was
agreed by the Committee. (ACTION)
Cllr
Connor proposed that a further report be provided to the Committee
at a future date including details of the outcomes of the Middlesex
University evaluation and a greater understanding of how the health
inequalities work was being embedded in local authorities.
(ACTION)