Agenda item

The Head of Communications and Engagement (HCE) for Barking and Dagenham, Havering and Redbridge Clinical Commissioning Groups (BHR CCGs) delivered a presentation to update the Health Scrutiny Committee on the work undertaken to communicate changes to urgent care services and the winter communications campaign, which covered the following areas:

·  Communications approach and ongoing engagement;

·  Changes to services – new model of care;

·  Who the CCGs talked to and what local people told them;

·  Testing existing materials;

·  Key recommendations arising from engagement work;

·  Summary and next steps;

·  Winter communications;

·  Winter campaigns and key audiences;

·  Campaign plan and targeted work in BHR; and

·  Looking forward.

In response to queries, the HCE stated that she would be happy to co-ordinate information on the uptake amongst the staff at BHRUT and NELFT of the flu jab, and to provide information on where Barking and Dagenham residents go for their urgent care needs.

The Council’s Director of Public Health confirmed that school rolls were the best source of data for ensuring as many children as possible were protected against the flu. Performance data would be collected by NHS England at the completion of the programme.

Members felt strongly that local NHS services and partners needed to be much clearer on what was meant by ‘urgent care’ to ensure residents went to the right services, and did not go to A&E when it was not the most appropriate service for their needs. The HCE confirmed this was already identified as a key element on ongoing communications and engagement work on urgent care.

Furthermore, Members felt that residents did not always obtain a straightforward answer from the NHS 111 service, as the professionals frequently advised the parents to take their children to A&E if they felt there was a need to. The HCE stated that she acknowledged this, adding that the NHS had to be very risk averse when it came to unwell children. However, the NHS 111 service had introduced a ‘fast-track’ process which meant parents of young children will talk to a GP or other health professional who could give them direct advice.

Members felt that communication campaigns were only useful where services could live up to the promises made. For example, people were aware of the GP hubs that provided appointments for those who could not get an appointment with their usual GP; however, it was not always clear what phone number to ring, and there were sometimes long phone queues to get an appointment via the hubs as there was not enough capacity to meet demand. This meant that some people would end up going to A&E.

The HCE stated that she would refer questions around commissioning to meet demand to her colleagues who could attend a future meeting of the Committee to have these discussions. She added that the NHS 111 service would increasingly become the gateway to access urgent care services moving forward.

In response to questions, the HCE stated that although evaluation on communication and engagement activities were undertaken both nationally and locally, it was challenging to demonstrate impact of specific communications messages. Patient experience was the best indicator of how well messages were being received by residents; however, a true picture could only be obtained over a period of time.

Members stated that the order and range of questions asked by NHS 111 call handlers did not always help them to quickly understand the different needs of service users, particularly children. In response, the HCE said the questions were clinically tested, but said she would feedback to her colleagues on the suggestion that relevant questions about a patient’s existing medical conditions should be posed earlier so that the caller could be given appropriate advice more quickly.

Members asked how the various communication methods and messages were tested. The HCE stated that her team worked very closely with the local Healthwatch organisations, used online methods and engaged directly with community groups.

Members expressed concerns at planned changes to the health commissioning landscape which would potentially see commissioners of services becoming more and more remote from the borough’s residents. This posed the danger that services would not reflect the borough’s needs, potentially leading to adverse health outcomes. Members felt the CCGs’ communication team and clinicians had an important role in that regard, to ensure residents and partners were kept well informed of changes to governance arrangements and how to get their voices get heard.

The Chair thanked the HCE for her presentation and on behalf of the Committee requested, for a future meeting, a report on the evidence base for commissioning urgent care services and how this informed the CCGs’ communications work.