Agenda item

This update will also include a Briefing On ‘The Future of Charing Cross’’ Healthwatch CWL Report. 

Councillor Vaughan welcomed Olivia Clymer, Chief Executive, and Eva Pyschrani, Engagement Lead, from Healthwatch.  Olivia Clymer explained that the report set out the research undertaken to evaluate patient and community views about the future of Charing Cross Hospital, because of the lack of clarity about what the future held for a valued and cherished organisation.  The methodology of the survey framed questions submitted to NWL CCGs and was then asked of local people.  Two pieces of outreach work were undertaken to understand the experience of people using Charing Cross.

The report considered patient involvement, experience, treatment, communication, travel time and patient perceptions of what a local hospital was.  The methodology meant that the questions went to the CCG, then out in the field, and to the hospital, to capture responses of the public.

There was overwhelmingly positive appreciation of the hospital.  Patients said that they wanted to be involved in shaping the future of the hospital. In its conclusion, the report emphasised that the Charing Cross was an important part of the community for local people. 

Councillor Morton said that he felt reassured by the report and that services would be safe until 2021.  However, given that borough was estimated to increase by 15,000 people, he sought stronger assurances to address future provision.  Olivia Clymer concurred but explained that it was not within the gift of Healthwatch to do so. They could help scrutinise how decisions about health services were being made and hold NHS decision makers to account.  They were currently awaiting a response from the NWL collaborative.

Janet Cree said that this was an excellent report and suggested that it be included on the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (Imperial) board meeting agenda.  It was important to hear residents’ concerns and how much they value the hospital, and the CCG offered to assist with facilitating this. 

Bryan Naylor commended the report but queried the small sample size of the survey, expressing concern that it would be too easy to dismiss because of the small number of respondents.  He suggested that it would benefit from further work, which would lend it more weight.  Victoria Brignell added that given how the NHS was stretched, why even contemplate closing Charing Cross, forcing people to travel further for treatment? 

Olivia Clymer welcomed the positive comments provided.  This was a robust piece of work, with a simple, clear message. She indicated that she would like to see how recommendations could be taken forward. 

Jim Grealy thanked Healthwatch for a thorough piece of work, which represented what long-term patients and residents already recognised and highlighted concerns about losing Charing Cross, which would not diminish.  He said that the hospital was not replaceable and it would be helpful to see an accurate report on the demographic developments in this part of London, referencing the needs of an ageing population, which must be considered.  He said there had been no new thinking since Shaping a Healthier Future (SaHF) and the STP.  Evidence regarding travel for vulnerable people to get treatment had not been provided and there was a need for specific answers and evidence, as to when Charing Cross was to close. 

Bryan Naylor, using the winter crisis as a reference, suggested the inclusion of a further recommendation that would allow earlier engagement when major decisions were being considered at a formative stage, so for the STP, this was now.  Two-way dialogue was needed, where the views of local people informed future plans. 

Eva Pyschrani suggested that it might be feasible for Imperial to prepare a demographic report at the request of the Committee.

In terms of recommendations, Olivia Clymer highlighted the need for a clear and robust communication and engagement strategy. The views of the CCG as to the definition of “consultation” was different from what residents understood. 

The second recommendation was that the key NHS decision-making bodies should provide clear information in respect of decisions regarding the future of Charing Cross.  2021 was only three years away and she suggested that a decision should be reached or the plans rescinded to allow greater clarity.  In concluding, Olivia Clymer invited the Committee to hold the CCG to account, and encouraged the CCG to work collectively in a framework of engagement. 

In response to a request from Councillor Coleman, Janet Cree confirmed that she would facilitate the report’s inclusion on the agenda of the next Imperial board meeting and the next NWL Collaborative CCG shadow joint committee.  It was explained that the latter would hold its first meeting on 1^st February.  Councillor Coleman commented that the joint committee would have delegated powers to close the Charing Cross.  Dr Tim Spicer responded that there had never been a suggestion that Charing Cross would be closed.

Councillor Coleman observed that it was appropriate that Imperial board members considered the report, so that residents’ views could be heard. The NHS was too undemocratic, unresponsive and poor at consultation. It was suggested that the report also be sent to all eight of the West London Alliance councils. 

Councillor Coleman said it was important to understand the criteria being employed by the NHS to reach their conclusions about Charing Cross and that the criteria needed to be transparent. Dr Tim Spicer responded that the survey had been undertaken with people attending outpatient clinics, so it was appropriate that they would be seen at a local hospital. He suggested that the survey be broadened to capture the views of inpatients. 

Referencing the predicted population increase within the Borough, with increased numbers of vulnerable people, Councillor Coleman expressed concern that Charing Cross might be overwhelmed without more investment.  Initiatives such as the Community Independence Service (CIS) helped alleviate pressure but further work was required. 

Jim Grealy added that if the intention was to downgrade Charing Cross from an acute to a local hospital after 2021, then consultation should begin now to allow the public to have a full input, during the intervening period. 

In summarising the discussion, Councillor Vaughan, noted that the report would be further considered by Imperial and the Collaborative CCGs shadow joint committee.  On the issue of engagement, Councillor Vaughan reiterated the need for proper consultation and that it would be interesting to see shape of future engagement plans.

RESOLVED

1.   That the report be provided to Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and the NWL Collaborative CCGs shadow joint committee; and

2.   That the report be noted.