The Bradford City, Bradford Districts and Airedale and Wharfedale and Craven Clinical Commissioning Groups will submit Document “M” which presents performance against the NHS England Clinical Commissioning Group Improvement and Assessment Framework for 2017/18.

Recommended –

That the report (Document “M”) be noted.

(Michelle Turner/Julie Lawreniuk – 01274 237796/237642)

The Bradford City, Bradford Districts and Airedale and Wharfedale and Craven Clinical Commissioning Groups submitted Document “M” which presented performance against the NHS England Clinical Commissioning Group Improvement and Assessment Framework for 2017/18.for Bradford City (BCCCG), Bradford Districts (BDCCG) and Airedale, Wharfedale and Craven (AWCCCG) Clinical Commissioning Groups.

The background to the report informed Members that the  Clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) were clinically-led statutory NHS bodies responsible for planning, buying (commissioning) and monitoring health care services in the local area. Commissioning was about getting the best possible health outcomes for the local population, by assessing local health needs, deciding priorities and strategies, and then buying services on behalf of the population from a range of organisations including hospitals, clinics and community health bodies. CCGs were responsible for the health of their entire population and their performance was measured by how much they improve outcomes.

It was explained that NHS England had a statutory duty (under the Health and Social Care Act 2012) to conduct an annual assessment of every CCG. The CCG Improvement and Assessment Framework (IAF) drew together the NHS Constitution, performance and finance metrics and transformational challenges and played an important part in the delivery of the NHS Five Year Forward View.  An overview of CCG IAF performance was presented at Appendix 1 to Document “M”.

A co-opted Member, whilst welcoming the report and the vast amount of information, expressed concern that the volume of information made it less easy to read and valuable information could be concealed.  It was felt that comparisons with national trends could portray that although the area compared favourably with other areas performance may still, not necessarily, be good.    Whilst representing disabled people she stressed the need for those people to be treated with respect and that such reports should track the level of progress made. 

It was acknowledged that the report format had been transformed over a number of years and the quantity of information was welcomed.  It was agreed that the co-opted Member be included in future report planning sessions. 

The Document “M” reported the financial challenge and Quality, Innovation, Productivity and Prevention (QIPP) programme to ensure that the NHS ensured that each pound spent brought maximum benefits and quality of care to the public.  A table outlining the QIPP plan for 2018/2019 for all three CCGs was included in Document “M”.   

It was questioned if all referrals to psychiatric services were assessed against the same criteria.  It was explained that referrals were all informed by GP questionnaires and recovery rates were also measured in an identical manner.  There were, however, different rates of recovery. 

A belief that there was a lack of communication between GPs regarding patients who had been referred to other districts for treatment was expressed. 

A Member queried how NHS England priority areas were defined.  It was reported that NHS England would assess the data in the annual reports each year and review every few years.  The CCG analysed data against a number of outcomes to determine where resources should be targeted.  Planning guidance was also received to instruct where funds should be spent and how performance must be managed and monitored.   Issues were monitored,  however, some unanticipated matters would occur.  NHS England would communicate annually and confirm if the CCG were  outliers for specific disease.  It was confirmed that there should not be any massive changes in each annual report and an improving picture should be seen.

In response to concern that targets were set against national averages it was reported that the CCGs did have some freedom to set individual targets, however, many were imposed by NHS England.

Resolved –

That the report (Document “M”) be noted and Bradford City, Bradford Districts and Airedale and Wharfedale and Craven Clinical Commissioning Groups be requested to provide a further report in 12 months time.

ACTION: Bradford City, Bradford districts and Airedale and Wharfedale and Craven Clinical Commissioning Groups