Venue: Hockney Room - Margaret McMillan Tower, Bradford
Contact: Claire Tomenson
DISCLOSURES OF INTEREST
(Members Code of Conduct - Part 4A of the Constitution)
To receive disclosures of interests from members and co-opted members on matters to be considered at the meeting. The disclosure must include the nature of the interest.
An interest must also be disclosed in the meeting when it becomes apparent to the member during the meeting.
(1) Members may remain in the meeting and take part fully in discussion and voting unless the interest is a disclosable pecuniary interest or an interest which the Member feels would call into question their compliance with the wider principles set out in the Code of Conduct. Disclosable pecuniary interests relate to the Member concerned or their spouse/partner.
(2) Members in arrears of Council Tax by more than two months must not vote in decisions on, or which might affect, budget calculations, and must disclose at the meeting that this restriction applies to them. A failure to comply with these requirements is a criminal offence under section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
(3) Members are also welcome to disclose interests which are not disclosable pecuniary interests but which they consider should be made in the interest of clarity.
(4) Officers must disclose interests in accordance with Council Standing Order 44.
(i) Susan Crowe disclosed, in the interest of transparency, that she was commissioned by the Bradford Districts Clinical Commissioning Group and the Council’s Health and Wellbeing department to deliver services.
(ii) Councillor A Ahmed disclosed, in the interest of transparency, that she was employed by the Yorkshire Ambulance Service NHS Trust.
(iii) Councillor Sharp disclosed, in the interest of transparency, that she was employed by an organisation that received funding from Clinical Commissioning Groups in Bradford.
(iv) Councillor Shaheen disclosed, in the interest of transparency, that she was studying for a social work degree.
Action: City Solicitor
INSPECTION OF REPORTS AND BACKGROUND PAPERS
(Access to Information Procedure Rules – Part 3B of the Constitution)
Reports and background papers for agenda items may be inspected by contacting the person shown after each agenda item. Certain reports and background papers may be restricted.
Any request to remove the restriction on a report or background paper should be made to the relevant Strategic Director or Assistant Director whose name is shown on the front page of the report.
If that request is refused, there is a right of appeal to this meeting.
Please contact the officer shown below in advance of the meeting if you wish to appeal.
(Claire Tomenson - 01274 432457)
There were no appeals submitted by the public to review decisions to restrict documents.
The Future in Mind Locality Transformation Plan was developed in the context of Bradford and Airedale with reference to the Joint Health Needs Analysis of Emotional and Psychological Wellbeing of Children in Bradford (Public Health 2015).
The Director of Strategy, Bradford Districts Clinical Commissioning Group will present a report (Document “A”) which answers some specific questions asked of the commissioners in relation to access and waiting times.
That the development of services in line with the Future in Mind Local Implementation Plan aligned with priorities within Journey to Excellence, Integrated Early years Strategy and the Early Help approach for children 0-19 years be supported.
(Mark Vaughan – 01274 237290)
The Director of Strategy, Bradford Districts Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) presented Document “A” which provided information on the key messages, wrap around services for children and ensuring that access to services was timely and appropriate.
The Healthy Minds Participation Co-ordinator, Barnardo’s, introduced documents compiled by young people and a video. The young people present at the meeting then commented on their experiences and provided suggestions which included issues such as:
· Intervention from parents and schools.
· Referrals to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS).
· Lengthy waiting lists to be seen and diagnosed.
· A support person should be assigned when young people were placed on the waiting list.
· Being supported was beneficial and eased the situation before being diagnosed.
· The support did not need to be from a professional person.
· Involvement in the Wellness Recovery Action Plan (WRAP) was beneficial.
· Pre-sessions would be beneficial prior to seeing a Mental Health Professional.
· The ‘drop-ins’ were daunting but provided a good service, however, they needed to be less formal.
· Shorter waiting times were required.
· It would be helpful if the school nurse had a knowledge of mental health.
· More information should be available in schools.
· Support workers listened and all young people needed some support.
· Not notified of support worker absences and loss of staff.
· A project to highlight mental health issues in primary schools was needed so pupils could understand the issues.
· The ‘First Response in Bradford’ service was good.
· Help from CAMHS had not been received in time.
· Only three CAMHS sessions had been provided over three months and they had not helped.
· Teachers had tried to organise additional Mental Health Care.
· Young people were working on the recruitment of CAMHS workers.
· The fear of uncertainty led to further issues.
· CAMHS was an excellent service and should be reinstated in secondary schools.
· Referrals were not always available, but if new support workers were placed in schools there would always be someone there to talk to.
· There had been a five month gap in seeing a support worker and there should be help in place in between appointments.
· Barnardo’s Participation Service had been very helpful compared to the services provided by CAMHS and support workers. It was important that the support worker could made links for the young person.
· WRAP worked well for some young people.
In response to the points raised, the Healthy Minds Participation Co-ordinator, Barnardo’s informed Members that:
· Barnardo’s were looking at a ‘buddy’ system with a ‘buddy’ co-ordinator, which they believed would be beneficial for young people as formal approaches were not the best way forward.
· Crisis work in the District was looking at ‘drop- in’ facilities and working with young people.
· Specialist support workers were not required, just someone with the correct knowledge.
· Some support workers should be retained and replacements were required if they left. It could be detrimental for the young person if their support worker left.
· There wasn’t an advocacy system for young people and there should be. Barnardo’s proposed ‘buddy’ system could become ... view the full minutes text for item 3.
The Strategic Director, Health and Wellbeing will present Document “B” which provides an update on the progress of the project plan to develop an integrated service for 14-25 year old disabled young people and their families in Bradford.
The Project Board is supported by members from the three local Clinical Commissioning Groups, the Local Authority (Children's and Adult Services), Bradford District Care Foundation Trust, Airedale NHS Foundation Trust and Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust working in partnership to deliver improved outcomes for young people.
That the Committee notes the progress made and the plans for the development of an integrated transition service for young people.
(Fred Bascombe – 01274 431185)
The Service Manager, Disabilities, presented a report (Document “B”) which informed Members of the progress of the project plan to develop an integrated service for 14 – 25 year old disabled young people and their families in Bradford. He explained that services would have to be joined and it was a complex matter. It had been agreed that social care would be offered via Adults Services and there was a strong legislative imperative to make the changes. It was noted that the challenges had been highlighted for a number of years and progress had been made, however, there was more work to be done. The Service Manager, Disabilities reported that there were strong links with the Transforming Care Programme, though the ethos of the Care Act would not be easy to achieve. He confirmed that the Service was looking at options and trying to develop more innovative approaches. In relation to continuing health care, Members were informed that there were two frameworks, one for adults and the other for children. The Children and Families Act 2014 required the move from statements to Education Health and Care Plans (EHCPs) and a project plan had been developed along with the establishment of a Transition Team, which would provide the opportunity to plan earlier. The Service Manager, Disabilities stated that issues had been caused by the different systems used and the storage of information in various areas. He indicated that work to ensure that all the required information could be accessed was still ongoing. Officers would also need support to be able to understand all the legal requirements when the Teams involved merged.
The Service Manager, Fostering, addressed Members explaining that the developments in the 14 – 25 year old service presented a unique opportunity to recognise the delivery of a joined up service for the Bradford District. He acknowledged that there were challenges around developing a personalisation agenda, as it would be difficult for children, however, if the process was correct from the start it would remain so as they progressed into adulthood.
Members then made the following comments:
· Where was the transition process going wrong? Issues appeared to arise when young people transferred to Adult Services, which was a crucial point in the process.
· The impact on young people having to make their own way in life after attending a school should not be underestimated.
· People without disabilities had to accept those that did and support needed to be provided at an earlier stage along with accessible information.
· Direct payment levels were also low.
· Help for young people stopped at 18 years and caused issues for them.
· Who was responsible for the EHCPs? If there was a greater responsibility, would it place more pressure on the Team?
· The transition from Children’s to Adult Services was daunting for young people.
· What support was offered to existing day services?
· It would be a major culture change for staff.
· Was there anything similar to ‘Viewpoint’ and could it continue to be used ... view the full minutes text for item 4.