To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of the following Board Members:

Councillor D. Ali

Councillor I. Ahmed,

K. Jones (Healthwatch Rochdale) - M. Parker attended as substitute

M. Hubbard (VCSE representative) – L. Windsor-Welsh attended as substitute.

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of the following support officers: A. Kelly (NHS GM IC HMR) and A. Kelly (Northern Care Alliance).

Members are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary, personal or personal and prejudicial interests they may have and the nature of those interests relating to items on this agenda and/or indicate if S106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 applies to them.

There were no declarations of interest.

To determine whether there are any additional items of business which, by reason of special circumstances, the Chair decides should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency.

There were no urgent items of business.

To determine any items on the agenda, if any, where the public and press are to be excluded from the meeting.

Resolved

That agenda Item Nos. 13a, Complex Services Pennine Acute Disaggregation and 14a, Advocacy Contract and Retendering be considered following the exclusion of the press and public.

Members are requested to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 25th July 2023.

Resolved

That the minutes of the Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale Locality Board meeting held on 25^th July 2023 be approved as a correct record.

To consider public questions received since last meeting of the Board.

Resolved

That it be noted that one question relating to life expectancy had been received, and a response had be shared with the requester, Board Members and supporting officers.

To receive a verbal update from the NHS GM Integrated Care Representative and the Place Based Lead – Item for Information.

The Place Lead and NHS GM Integrated Care representative provided an updated regarding the implementation of the Integrated Care System in Greater Manchester.

The Board was advised that financial challenges across the system had been identified.

Resolved

That the update be noted.

To receive a verbal update from the Place Lead & Rochdale Borough Council Chief Executive and the NHS Greater Manchester Integrated Care Representative - Item for information.

The Place Lead and NHS GM Integrated Care representative provided an updated regarding the GM Operating Model.

It was noted that the Model would be operational from 20^th September 2023, and a ‘transition plan’ would be established to support the process.

Resolved

That the update be noted.

To receive a verbal update from the Director of Public Health, RBC and the Local Care Organisation Chief Officer – Item for information.

The Local Care Organisation Chief Officer reported that the Operating Model had been well received by the Local Care Board. 

The final version of the Locality Operating Model would be presented to the HMR Locality Board on 28th November 2023 for approval.

Resolved

That the update be noted.

To consider a report of the Locality Director of Strategic Performance – Health & Social Care – Item for information.

Consideration was given to a report of the Locality Director of Strategic Performance – Health & Social Care which provided an update on the HMR Locality Health budgets for the period April –June (Q1) 2023.

Board Members were advised that the Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale Locality were £41K underspent with a forecast underspend of £25K.  This was due to a underspend being forecast on prescribing offsetting a cost pressure relating to the 2023/24 schedules from Community Health Partnerships and NHS Property Services for void and subsidy costs being higher than the 4% increase that Greater Manchester anticipated.

Resolved

1.    That the year-to-date Q1 position of £41k underspend with a forecast out turn position of a £25k underspend be noted.

2.    That the decision by Greater Manchester not to report the potential impact of April 2023 increase in prescribing costs be noted.

To consider a report of the Locality Director of Strategic Performance – Health & Social Care – Item for information.

Consideration was given to a report of the Locality Director of Strategic Performance – Health & Social Care that provided an update on the Quarter 1 position of the Better Care Fund for the financial year 2023/24.

Resolved

1.    That the Quarter 1 monitoring information, as at June 2023 period end be noted.

2.    That it be noted there were contingencies being held for budgets not yet allocated in 2023/24 of £89k giving a total forecast revenue underspend of £89k.

To consider a report of the Locality Director of Strategic Performance – Health & Social Care – Item for information.

Consideration was given to a report of the Locality Director of Strategic Performance – Health & Social Care that presented the Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale (HMR) Locality Board Assurance Framework (BAF), Q1 position for 2023/24.

A full refresh of the BAF for 2023/24 had been undertaken to ensure the new strategic risks identified within the BAF were aligned to the agreed locality strategic objectives.

A Q1 review of the BAF had been undertaken to identify progress made to mitigate the risks since the BAF was agreed in May 2023.

It was noted that there was currently no mechanism in place to received feedback from the Greater Manchester Integrated Card Board when a strategic risk was escalated.

Resolved

1.    That the progress made in Q1 in respect of mitigating the agreed HMR Locality BAF risks be noted.

2.    That the strategic risks scoring 15 or above, as set out in section 5.6 of the report be escalated to the Greater Manchester Integrated Care Board. 

To consider a report of the Director of Public Health, RBC - Item for information.

Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Public Health & Wellbeing (Rochdale Borough Council).

It was advised that there were no points of escalation for the reporting period.

It was reported that poverty, serious violence and people workforce had been identified as priority programmes to support the development of the Engagement and Insight Framework.  An additional project working with pharmacies and the south-east Asian population had been identified and further discussions were being undertaken to establish its feasibility.

In response to a query about how the priority programmes had been selected, the Director of Public Health & Wellbeing agreed to provide some additional details at the next Board meeting.

Resolved

1.  That the Locality Board agreed to support the:

·         decision of the final document being a framework to advise and guide;

·         Engagement and Insight Framework use within teams / services; and

·         nomination of a health colleague to engage with around the Framework development.

2.  That the Director of Public Health and Wellbeing be requested to provide an update relating to the rationale for the selection of priority programmes, at the next HMR Locality Board meeting.

To consider a report of the Associate Director of Integrated Systems Development – Item for Information.

Consideration was given to a report and a presentation of the Associate Director of Integrated Systems Development that provided an update on progress against the delivery of the neighbourhood programme and set out key risks to delivery.

The Board was advised there were no points of escalation for the reporting period.

Resolved

That the update report and the presentation be noted.

To consider a report of the Assistant Director (Workforce and Organisational Development, RBC) and the Director of HR, Rochdale Care Organisation on behalf of HMR Locality People Group – Item for information.

Consideration was given to a report of the Assistant Director (Workforce and Organisational Development, RBC) and the Director of HR, Rochdale Care Organisation on behalf of HMR Locality People Group.

The Board was advised that there were no points of escalation during the reporting period.

Resolved

That the update report be noted.

To consider that the press and public be excluded from the remaining part of the meeting pursuant to Section 100(A)4 of the Local Government Act 1972 on the grounds that discussions may involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the provisions of category three, Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 and public interest would not be served in publishing the information.

Resolved

That, in accordance with the provisions under Section 100(A) (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following items of business.

Reason for the Decision Should the press and public remain during consideration of the items, there may be a disclosure of information that was deemed to be exempt under Part 3 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972

To consider a report of the Associate Director of Transformation and Delivery (Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale) – Item for information.

Consideration was given to a report of the Associate Director of Transformation and Delivery which provided an update on the progress to disaggregate services.

Resolved

1.  That the report be received.

2.  That it be noted that report would be considered by the Health, Schools and Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 21^st September 2023.

To consider a report of the Director of Health & Care Integration (DASS & Deputy Place Lead) – Item for decision.

Consideration was given to a report of the Director of Health & Care Integration (DASS &Deputy Place Lead) that sought agreement to retender for the provision of an advocacy service.

Resolved

1.    That a competitive tendering process for the Advocacy contract be undertaken.

2.    That the Director of Health and Care Integrated (DASS & Deputy Place Lead) be delegated authority to award the Advocacy contract.

Reasons for the decision

Provision of advocacy was a statutory duty under the Care Act (2014).  The Act places a duty on local authorities to arrange independent advocacy if it was considered that an individual would experience ‘substantial difficulty’ participating in their assessment / preparation of their care and support plan.

Alternatives considered

Not to retender for the Advocacy service.  The current contact could not be extended further – therefore, retendering the contract via a competitive market process was required.