Agenda item

Sarah Blow (SB) provided an update on actions taken since the last meeting of the JHOSC in October. Further analysis of the options had been undertaken and an Equalities Analysis completed. Recommendations on consultation options will be made to the Committee in Common (CIC) based on this information. There had been further engagement with stakeholders and a draft consultation document had been produced and updated following feedback; a colour proof of which was circulated at the meeting. The CIC was meeting the next morning where they will be considering proceeding to formal consultation starting on 5th December and ending on 10th March 2017. Feedback will be provided to the CIC on tonight’s meeting.

Rory Hegarty (RH) then provided an update on plans for the formal consultation process. He noted the intention to speak to all local OSC Chairs to talk through plans for local areas. A timeline and overview of activities was provided along with a list of those who would be consulted, the communications materials that would be used and the means by which OHSEL will consult including focus groups, deliberative events, roadshows, a consultation hearing, briefings, meetings of the Planned Care Reference Group, and mail outs. A further slide set out how people could respond and share their views. The responses received during the consultation will be recorded, independently evaluated and presented to the CIC.

Following the briefing by OHSEL, there was a lengthy discussion, which highlighted a number of key issues/concerns that the JHOSC had identified;

·  The draft consultation document and other important information had been provided too late to the JHOSC to allow Members adequate time to consider them.

·  The consultation document should include an option 4 – an enhanced status quo, allowing hospitals to continue providing elective orthopaedic care at existing sites. More detail to explain this option 4 should be added to the consultation document.

·  Concerns that the draft consultation document contains leading questions and is weighted towards the NHS; preferred option. The JHOSC considered that information should be presented in the consultation document in such a way that it is clear that there is a choice of options and that enables people to compare the advantages and disadvantages the options, which have each been evaluated against the same criteria.

·  Further clarity is required on the financial modelling and this in needed before the consultation begins.

·  The concerns expressed by Lewisham and Greenwich Trust about the ongoing viability of provider trusts, set out in a letter tabled at the meeting, were noted.

RESOLVED:

Following a vote, all Members of the JHOSC unanimously agreed that they did not support or approve the consultation document in its current form. It was resolved that the following recommendations should be made:

Consultation Document

·  Order of the consultation questions to be reviewed;

·  Option 4 (enhanced status quo) to be included throughout;

·  Page 7 - ‘hospital’ to be added after ‘Queen Mary’s’ and reference to ‘other sites’ to be removed;

·  Re-word the question 2.b in relation to the impact on A&E services;

·  Re-consider wording about the consultation not being a vote (p.23); and,

·  More data to be added on infection rates and missed appointments in the SW London model for comparison with the four options.

Related Issues

·  A financial briefing to be provided to JHOSC members;

·  JHOSC to have sight of the independent work being undertaken alongside the consultation;

·  The University of Kent to be invited to the JHOSC in April to present its independent analysis of the consultation; and,

·  JHOSC meeting in February to develop the JHOSC’s response to the consultation and to invite public representations.