Agenda item

The Area Director (South Gloucestershire and Bristol); Mental Health Programme Manager;  and Delivery Director (South Bristol ICP), Bristol North Somerset South Gloucestershire CCG, introduced the report.

The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Integrated Care Systems said that the integration of health and care should be from a bottom-up approach, and what had been seen by the Health & Wellbeing Board, on which the three Integrated Care Partnerships were represented, was good local representation and voice from local communities, and that there had been great enthusiasm from local partners; and that she hoped ICPs would have the opportunity to raise local need and affect ongoing strategy.  Also social prescribing was highlighted as an important role within the development of the ICPs and how communities accessed services.

·         There was a discussion about how many GPs there were in relation to population across the area, and Members were advised that the numbers related to GP practices, not the GPs themselves, and that some practices had more GPs in them, which meant more of an even relationship between GPs and population across the area. It was agreed that this needed clarifying and updated statistics would be sent to the Committee.

·         There was a discussion around recruitment and retention of the workforce and Members asked what steps would be taken to manage the issues.  The Committee was advised that there were workforce shortages and challenges, and that the plan to introduce integrated teams removed the need for a linear referral process, and so resources and time could be freed up.

·         There was a recognition that peoples’ needs should be met earlier and support mechanisms should be widened with the utilisation for the community and voluntary sector. 

·         The Director for Communities and Public Health clarified that the proposals for charges in parks only referred to commercial activities, and so would not affect social prescribers.

·         A Member of the Committee expressed optimism that the new arrangements would make a positive difference to accessing mental health services,  and stated that their experience was one that showed the eligibility criteria for referrals into services was a high threshold, and asked whether the new framework would mean an expectation of more referrals and better and quicker access to services.  The Committee was informed that the expectation was now a four week wait for the patient from initial referral; this was a national aspiration embraced locally  – the four weeks would be from the point of reach-out for support to an offer of treatment (from a range of offers which included clinical and social prescribing).

·         Members were advised that the new framework brought a fundamentally different approach, which included devolved budgets and demanded closer partnership working, a move away from a linear pathway which would increase access where it was needed and improved service.

·         The Committee was advised that the framework demanded good partnership working which would recognise the differing factors that affected peoples’ mental health, such as access to good housing, food and exercise; that opening up the links across housing, parks and green spaces and healthy eating initiative was integral to the community mental health framework.

·         There was a discussion around community engagement and Members asked how communities had been listened to. Members were informed that there had been 40 engagement sessions in the first half of the year; these had been with professional partners and the voluntary and community sector, as well as with people with lived experiences. 

·         The Committee was advised that all six Integrated Care Partnerships had people with lived experiences to help shape their plans.  Members were also told about groups that focused on specific areas, such as eating disorders, formed to help develop services, co-chaired by professionals and an individual with lived experience.

·         The Chair commented that there was not established voluntary groups that represented all communities, and so this should be recognised and arrangements put in place so everyone could have influence if they wanted to; and that there was a need to communicate better with all communities the positive work as set out in the report.

·         The Chair commended the inclusion of a need to ‘directly and urgently address the inequalities in health outcomes meeting needs earlier to mitigate against disadvantage...’ as a key attribute of the draft model of care and asked how the relevant communities were being identified and targeted so as to address the inequalities.  Members were told that data was utilised to help inform targeted support, and that tackling health inequalities was forefront of all plans.

·         The Committee was informed about the use of ‘asset mapping’ (which included mapping of community organisations across the area) which would assist in the engagement of diverse groups.

·         There was a discussion around transition from CAMHS to adult mental health services, and members were advised that there should not be a hard deadline for transition, that the focus should be on enabling young people to adult services between the ages 16-25, and that there was a need to ensure accessibility for people with learning difficulties and autism, and so the criteria needed to be flexible.

·         The Committee was informed that there was a significant piece of work in development an IT system which would join up care records, and that this would be extended to all relevant organisations within the framework.

RESOLVED;

That;

• The number of GP practices with regard to population across the areas be clarified and passed to the Committee;

• The report be noted.