Agenda item

To receive a presentation on the Wood Green Hub and Community Diagnostic Centre update.

Mr Jonathan Gardner, Ms Sophie Harrison and Mr Mustafa Hassan introduced the report.

The meeting welcomed the report and heard that:

·         In relation to the proposed health centre in Wood Green and some of the risks involved, there was a capital risk and discussions were being held at Whittington Health regarding commitment to the project and providing assurance that the allocation of the capital was the right step to take. All services were capital constrained, but Whittington Health would back the project. It would be useful if the Council could raise the profile of the project and help ensure that it was seen as a priority for the Council as much as it was for Whittington Health. There would be a degree of certainty regarding the project at the end of October when the lease was signed as it would be a 30-year lease. In relation to how the service would run with the varying patient needs, solutions would come through continued work over the next year as teams were built in the right places. Efforts would be made to engage with clients, service users, patients in that process. In terms of accessibility, one example would be a changing places, toilets and showers that would be accessible to everybody. Disability access teams were being consulted to make sure that the facility was accessible in the broadest sense.  These actions would be shared with Disability Access Haringey and were work in progress.

·         It was important to have further discussions regarding risks and mitigations regarding the financial arrangements of the project. Some these considerations would be useful to be brought to the Health and Wellbeing Board.

·         The facility would have a non-emergency patient transport drop off in the service yard at the back of Wood Green Shopping City with direct access into the ground floor of the hub. This raised the query of the use of dial-a-ride facility as if people could access non-emergency patient transport, there was possibly an arrangement in place so the service could allow vehicles to be brought to the front door.

·         Good contractual arrangements were in place and that would mitigate risks. This included capital increases because the project was now at the point of having the latest quality surveyors and the project was about to go to tender.

·         Currently there was governance around the programme. A steering group was in place and various different partners were members of the group.

·         Reporting was also done to the Place and Neighbourhoods Committee.

·         The ongoing governance of running the project needed to be considered and decided upon. 

·         In relation to the other centres, Stuart Crescent was not changing, but Bounds Green and Edwards Drive would be closed and sold eventually. There would be no change to the Bounds Green Health Centre, which was a separate building.

·         in terms of taking walk-ins, most of the services were referral services, so this could be podiatry services, health visiting services and other types of services. There would be a GP practice, but the centre would be a walk-in centre. People would be able to walk in and get advice or guidance or support, be it Council services, mental health services or community services.

·         In relation to dental services, the dental services were very specifically for those patients who were often younger, but were also older people with learning disabilities or other disabilities who could not easily access the dental services on the High Street. It was important to have a clear outline on who could and could not access the services.

·         Further outline was required regarding working with the Voluntary Community Sector.

·         There needed to be some very clear means by which patients were going to be consulted at every stage. Some positive work had been done on other projects in the borough which involved members of the community regarding how the building was designed and it was important to involve the public at this stage as well.

·         Particular patients needed to be involved on how risk was managed as services may be cut due to diminishing funds.

·         Whittington Health had access to a GP dashboard which displayed which GPs were making referrals to Whittington and when. This process was used to keep regular communication with the GPs to make sure that there was open communication. With the MRINCT to begin with, there would likely be a backlog before it was opened up to new patients.

·         UCL Partners was an academic health science network and were running the evaluation. It was important to obtain more qualitative research such as interviews.

·         Background data on service users, including whether or not they had carer responsibilities would be useful. 

·         The IT connectivity between within the system broadly was flawed. Work had been done with all the GPs within North Central London to set them up to receive patient test results electronically. The connectivity rate was at 90% amongst all of the North Central London (NCL) area.  Outside of North Central London, it would be difficult to get results back to GP practises outside of that region due to the IT connectivity. Attempts were being made to work towards a single system for all GPs and acute trusts within NCL to have access to the same systems. This would be eventually expanded across the UK.

·         It would be useful to have written details on the CT and MRI and how this would work.

RESOLVED:

That the report be noted.