Cllr
Connor noted that, although the report covered the consultation
approach, the papers did not include the consultation itself as
this was not due to be launched until 11th
December.
Sarah
Mansuralli, Chief Strategy &
Population Health Officer at North Central London Integrated Care
Board (NCL ICB), introduced the report, explaining that this built
on previous briefings and provided the Committee with the
opportunity to comment on the approach to consultation. As an
Integrated Care System, there was an overall focus on inequalities,
value for money and social/economic development. The Integrated
Care Strategy identified Start Well as a priority with a focus on
service improvement and pregnant women’s experience of care
and the role of the workforce as being critical for population
health.
Sarah
Mansuralli explained that the Case for
Change had been published in June 2022 with a strong evidence base
for improving care at an early age having an impact on population
health outcomes. The Start Well programme had commenced in November
2021 and had benefitted from extensive clinical and service user
input with the development of best practice care models and
understanding the case the changing the way that services were
organised. In NCL the birth rate was declining but the complexities
of births was increasing. There were high vacancy rates in birthing
centres which could compromise the choice of services while there
was imbalance of demand across services leading to an
over/underutilisation of particular units. The number of deliveries
at the Edgware Birth Centre was declining each year with just 34
deliveries in the previous financial year. In addition, the fabric
of estates in NCL was not up to the standards required by best
practice models.
The new
models of care were designed to address these issues, making each
unit clinically viable, maintaining choice and improving the
patient experience. The documents provided to the Committee
demonstrated that doing nothing was not an option as the existing
model was no longer sustainable. The following changes were
therefore proposed:
- To move to a
model with four units providing maternity and neonatal care instead
of five units.
- This would
mean having three Level 2 units and one specialist Level 3 neonatal
intensive care unit at University College London Hospital
(UCLH).
-
There would no longer be a Level 1 unit or a
stand-alone birthing centre.
-
Pathways for paediatric surgical care would be
streamlined.
Anna
Stewart, Programme Director for Start Well, set out details of the
options being included in the public consultation:
- Option A
involved the UCLH as the specialist Level 3 neonatal unit, with
Barnet Hospital, North Mid Hospital and the Whittington Hospital as
the three Level 2 units. Maternity and neonatal services at the
Royal Free Hospital would be closed.
- Option B also
involved the UCLH as the specialist Level 3 neonatal unit, with
Barnet Hospital, North Mid Hospital and the Royal Free Hospital as
the three Level 2 units. Maternity and neonatal services at the
Whittington Hospital would be closed.
-
Option A had been identified as the ICB’s
preferred option. The reasons for this were set out in the report,
but were mainly because this would mean fewer staff needing to move
to a new location and because Option A would mean some patients
going to hospitals in North West London where there was capacity
for this, while Option B involved some patients going to hospitals
in North East London where capacity was more limited.
Anna
Stewart also outlined details of a second issue in the public
consultation which concerned the proposed closure of Edgware Birth
Centre due to low levels of demand.
The
third main issue in the public consultation related to proposals on
paediatric services which would involve:
-
Local units (at Barnet, North Mid, Royal Free and
Whittington Hospitals) continuing to provide most emergency surgery
for children aged 3 or older, general/urology surgery for children
aged 5 or older and ear/nose/throat/dentistry day surgery for
children aged 3 or older.
-
A centre of expertise at Great Ormond Street
Hospital including a surgical assessment unit for emergencies for
babies and young children and emergency surgery for children
younger than 3 years old or for general/urology surgery for
children younger than 5 years old.
Sarah Mansuralli and
Anna Stewart then responded to questions from the Committee about
the options and general approach to the consultation:
- Cllr Clarke
welcomed the preferred option being the one that retained services
at the Whittington Hospital due to the large catchment area that
could be affected. However, she asked how concerns identified with
the Whittington unit on page 12 of the report would be addressed
including the unit not meeting with modern best practice building
standards and risks around infection control. Sarah Mansuralli responded that this part of the report
set out the clinical drivers for the proposed changes but that the
changes would also involve capital investment to improve facilities
on one of the two sites (Whittington or Royal Free depending on the
option selected). Clare Dollery,
Medical Director at Whittington Health NHS Trust, added that the
unit had very caring, well-trained staff who worked to ensure that
the deficiencies of the old Victorian estate did not impact on
outcomes for patients. However, she acknowledged that the lack of
en-suite facilities was an issue for
patients and that investment was required to bring the estate up to
the standard required. Mike Greenberg, Medical Director for Barnet
Hospital (which managed the unit at the Royal Free), added that, as
stated in the report, the Level 1 unit at the Royal Free was only
37% occupied in 2021/22. This impacted on the experience of the
doctors and nurses in looking after sick babies, representing a
clinical risk that was mitigated by the use of fixed term
consultants but was not sustainable in the longer-term. He also
reiterated the considerations about the additional staff disruption
and patient flows associated with Option B. Clare Dollery and Mike Greenberg also highlighted the
involvement of their staff in the stakeholder consultation group.
Cllr Clarke welcomed these points but expressed the view that more
information about the capital investment should be available and
made clearer in documents relating to the consultation.
(ACTION) Anna Stewart responded that the public consultation
documents had not yet been approved by the ICB Board but, in their
current form, explained that approximately £40m of capital
investment would be provided for either option.
- Cllr
Chowdhury expressed concern about the additional demand pressure on
the Whittington unit and about potential difficulties with
transport issues for patients going to the Whittington unit instead
of the Royal Free unit. Michelle Johnson, Clinical Lead for the
Start Well programme, said that not all patients from the catchment
area would be going to the Whittington unit as a significant
proportion would be going to hospitals in North West London (should
Option A be chosen) and that the overall impact of the proposals
would be to increase capacity and improve all maternity
units.
- Asked by Cllr
Connor about the monitoring of data on patient flows, Anna Stewart
said that complex modelling had been carried out and that this was
based on predictions about where patients would go. In most cases
this would be their nearest unit, but patient choice was also
considered. The model would need to be rerun as more information
became available.
- Asked by Cllr
Cohen for further details on the capital investment, Sarah
Mansuralli explained that there was a
technical document underpinning the pre-consultation business case
that was linked to from the main report. Option A involved around
£42m being provided to improve the Whittington unit while
Option B involved around £39m being provided to improve the
Royal Free unit. She added that the decision was clinically driven
rather than financially driven, noting that the preferred option
involved slightly more funding and that the proposed closure of the
Edgware Birth Centre would not result in savings as the services
would be offered elsewhere.
Chloe
Morales Oyarce, Acting Assistant
Director for Communications & Engagement at NCL ICB, then set
out details of the public consultation itself which was proposed to
launch from 11th December 2023 and remain open for 14
weeks. She explained that there had already been extensive
engagement through the Start Well programme and that the new public
consultation would involve working with partners including local
authorities, NHS Trusts, voluntary sector organisations and others.
Clear information would be provided on how people could participate
in the consultation with various formats available online and via
printed documents to enable a high level of accessibility. There
would also be some targeted engagement for certain groups including
more deprived areas, BAME groups and geographical areas close to
the units affected. Engagement with staff groups would also
continue. More details about the consultation questionnaire and
engagement techniques were included in the report to the
Committee.
The
Committee then asked further questions about the public
consultation:
- Cllr Connor
asked how realistically the direction of policy would be impacted
if the feedback favoured Option B (or neither option) rather than
the preferred Option A. Sarah Mansuralli said that both options were deliverable
and that the proposals had been thoroughly tested by the London
Clinical Senate in terms of clinical outcomes. Anna Stewart
concurred with this and added that the consultation was not a
referendum or vote but a more nuanced process where everything that
was said and where these views were coming from would need to be
carefully analysed with the detailed impact assessment updated as
part of the process to reaching a decision.
- Asked by Cllr
Connor how concerns about transport issues would be addressed
through the consultation process, Sarah Mansuralli said that the ICB recognised that
further mitigations may be needed but that these would need to be
informed by the consultation.
- Cllr Connor
commented that, as part of the consultation process, the public
would need be made aware of the context that the Royal Free NHS
Trust was in favour of Option A (which involved the closure of the
existing unit at the Royal Free Hospital) as there was otherwise a
risk of only the negative aspects of a unit closure being
understood. Anna Stewart said that the consultation document would
explain how the ICB conclusions had been reached and set out which
organisations had been involved in that process. Sarah Mansuralli acknowledged that this might not
necessarily be overtly clear to the public and so they would give
this some further thought. (ACTION)
- Asked by Cllr
O’Halloran about the potential pressure on hospitals in North
East London under Option B, Anna Stewart said that, while both
options were deliverable, the proposals under Option A were
considered to be less disruptive both in terms of outflows and the
expansion of the current neonatal unit.
- Cllr Clarke
suggested that the graphic on page 16 of the agenda pack required
further information about how units were being upgraded if it was
to be included in the consultation. Anna Stewart responded that
this illustrated what the outcome of either option would look like
but reiterated that details of the capital investment would be
included in the public consultation document and agreed to recheck
how this would be framed. (ACTION)
- Cllr Connor
queried whether details of any additional services that would be
provided at the Royal Free or Whittington in the space vacated by a
unit closure would be included in the consultation. Sarah
Mansuralli said that it would be
difficult to include this in the consultation as the Trusts had not
yet reached decisions on this but acknowledged that there would be
opportunities provided by the availability of new space. Mike
Greenberg added that there was huge demand on space at the Royal
Free Hospital, including the possibility for a number of specialist
services to expand.
- Asked by Cllr
Chowdhury about engagement with BAME and more deprived communities,
Chloe Morales Oyarce reiterated the
engagement with partners, that the ICB had good relationships with
community groups who could help to facilitate engagement and that
there would also be targeted engagement based on where people could
be reached such as Childrens Centres.
She added that any suggestions for community contacts from
Committee Members would also be welcomed.
- Cllr Cohen
suggested that the mitigations around travel times and costs may
need to be strengthened, particularly in relation to more
disadvantaged communities. Anna Stewart responded that work with
partners had been carried out on mitigating the disbenefits, including potential eligibility for
reimbursement for travel costs in some circumstances. She added
that the current service model already involved long journeys in
some circumstances, for example when more complex care was required
than could be offered at the local unit. These issues would be
tested and analysed further as part of the public
consultation.
Cllr Connor then summarised the main recommendations
of the Committee on the public consultation as follows:
- The need for
the public to be made aware of the underlying support of NHS Trusts
for the proposals, including Trusts directly affected by the
potential closure of a unit as this was particularly relevant to
any local debate on this issue.
- The
importance of clarity over the capital funding being provided under
either of the main two options and the need to address any
potential risks over the longer-term of insufficient capital
funding to support the ongoing cost of Start Well programme,
including any possible hidden costs.
- To engage
with residents over the development of mitigations for people who
may be affected by additional transport costs.
- To closely
monitor and report back to the JHOSC on the ongoing modelling of
patient flows as current predictions may not necessarily match the
choices that patients subsequently make in future
years.
- That any
‘before/after’ graphics illustrating the two options in
the consultations documents should make clear how units are being
upgraded as part of that reconfiguration.