Venue: Ballroom, Town Hall, Bootle
Contact: Debbie Campbell Senior Democratic Services Officer
The Chair welcomed Members and Officers to the Special Meeting of the Committee and introductions took place.
Apologies for Absence
Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Jones; and Councillor Cummins, Cabinet Member – Adult Social Care.
Declarations of Interest
Members are requested at a meeting where a disclosable pecuniary interest or personal interest arises, which is not already included in their Register of Members' Interests, todeclare any interests that relate to an item on the agenda.
Where a Member discloses a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest, he/she must withdraw from the meeting room, including from the public gallery, during the whole consideration of any item of business in which he/she has an interest, except where he/she is permitted to remain as a result of a grant of a dispensation.
Where a Member discloses a personal interest he/she must seek advice from the Monitoring Officer or staff member representing the Monitoring Officer to determine whether the Member should withdraw from the meeting room, including from the public gallery, during the whole consideration of any item of business in which he/she has an interest or whether the Member can remain in the meeting or remain in the meeting and vote on the relevant decision.
No declarations of any disclosable pecuniary interests or personal interests were received.
Report of the Chief Legal and Democratic Officer
The Committee considered the report of the Chief Legal and Democratic Officer requesting the Committee to consider proposals for the reconfiguration of the hyper-acute stroke services across North Merseyside and West Lancashire, as set out at Appendix A to the report, and seeking to determine whether the proposals constituted a substantial development or variation in services for Sefton residents. Appendix A to the report set out the background to the matter; the current position in North Mersey and West Lancashire; the clinical model of care; scrutiny and assurance; engagement and communications; indicative timeline and milestones; and a conclusion.
Stroke care was currently provided by Liverpool University Hospitals, at both the Royal Liverpool and Aintree sites; and Southport and Ormskirk Hospitals NHS Trust. The proposal was for a comprehensive stroke centre on the Aintree Hospital site, co-located with specialist services provided by the Walton Centre; and with post-72 hours care provided closer to home at either Aintree, Broadgreen or Southport Hospitals.
Carole Hill, Director of Strategy, Communications and Integration, Liverpool and Knowsley Clinical Commissioning Groups; and Fiona Taylor, Chief Officer for the Sefton Clinical Commissioning Groups, were in attendance to present the proposals and to respond to questions raised by Members of the Committee.
Members of the Committee asked questions/raised matters on the following issues:
· The proposals were broadly welcomed.
· The higher proportion of older residents in Southport.
· Whether services could be improved at Southport Hospital.
· Concerns were held regarding travel times from Southport to Aintree Hospital when time was of the essence.
· Concerns were raised that patients would not behave as the model expected them to do so and that patients would present themselves at Southport Hospital A&E.
· Turnaround times for ambulances at Southport Hospital A&E and consistency of performance. Up-to-date performance could be provided within the health provider performance dashboard.
· It appeared to be preferable to receive excellent care that was slightly delayed.
· Concerns were raised regarding ambulances having to negotiate Switch Island and the busy traffic conditions there.
· The national FAST campaign regarding strokes and the possibility of undertaking a local campaign.
· The importance of the North West Ambulance Service (NWAS) being part of the proposed new clinical model of care.
· The costs of the proposals.
· The public consultation to be undertaken.
· Capacity for the proposed model.
· Investment for the repatriation part of the proposed model.
· Whether transportation for repatriation closer to home could be destabilising for the patient.
· The length of time taken for an ambulance to travel from Southport to Aintree Hospital. Information could be obtained from NWAS.
· Worst case scenarios for the journey time were required.
· The percentage of patients who would be repatriated closer to home.
· Costings for the post-72 hours care to be provided at Southport Hospital.
· Whether the proposed model was a result of pioneering research.
· Whether the proposed model could cause a “brain drain” from Southport Hospital.
· The possibility of providing traffic control for traffic lights when ambulances passed through Switch Island.
· Scanner capacity as part of the proposed ... view the full minutes text for item 16.