Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations made at the meeting.

The minutes were agreed as a correct record.

[A period not exceeding 20 minutes for

Statements from up to 5 members of the public on

matters within the Panel’s remit, proposing action(s)

which may be considered or contribute towards the

future development of the Panel’s work programme].

There were no public statements made.

The Panel was provided with a presentation relating to the impact of parental substance misuse on children and young people addressing:

·         What is hidden harm;

·         The size of the problem in Doncaster;

·         How services respond and how local authorities can prevent harm;

·         Delivery challenges;  and

·         Improvements that could be made.

The presentation raised a number of issues addressed by the Panel, as follows:

Families Moving On Together (FMOT) Programme – was confirmed as a relatively modest programme and funded through the Public Health and Stronger Families allocation.

Referrals - with regard to the threshold, it was acknowledged that there was a slight misconception that families should already be part of the Aspire programme or known to drug and alcohol support services, but this was not the case.  Anyone could be referred, where the impact of parental substance misuse was having an impact on their children or young people and noted that this was an area of work that required further promotion with referring practitioners.  It was noted that if Members wished to help a constituent find help they could approach the Aspire or Project 3 schemes.

Joint Commissioning Agenda – ensures there was a greater emphasis of provider partner organisations working together, supported by a number of strategic initiatives eg. The Place Plan.  At an operational level officers hold a commissioning budget and it was highlighted that more integrated working would be welcomed.  There was no set solution with regard to Joint commissioning for this issue but it could be successful due to the close working relationships between the Local Authority and Doncaster Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG).

Impact on Doncaster Families – Members learnt that following modelling of support services the impact of hidden harm on families could be larger than expected and concern was expressed that some people were not accessing or receiving required support.

It was hoped that across universal services for example, school staff, school nurses and NHS there was a confidence and skills to raise and address any concerns.  It was highlighted that school staff and Governors were required to undertake safeguarding training and suggested that a session on hidden harm could be added to this.

Stronger Families Programme – Members recalled that the funding was for a limited time period and that some really good success stories had been developed as a result of this piece of work.  Concern was expressed however, that if this preventative work was not undertaken then simple family tasks, for example, ensuring children were attending school and had eaten breakfast would not be a priority, when serious hidden harm issues were developing in a family unit.

Public Health Allocation Funding – was used for many public health services across the remit including the smoking cessation and adult drug treatment services.  It was noted that it was becoming increasingly difficult to deliver services under a shrinking health budget allocation ultimately requiring services to be remodelled.  It was confirmed that funding for treatment services was recurrent and ring-fenced but  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

To accompany the report, a presentation was provided to Members addressing health and social risks associated with obesity and poor oral health.  The following areas were addressed by the Panel in detail.

Barriers to oral health in infants – in response to concern expressed, relating to when an infant’s dental check was deferred to when they reached 2 and half hear years old, it was hoped this was the exception rather than the rule.  Members stressed that deferring their first treatment would create a barrier and by which time the child could already have poor oral health.  Therefore it was outlined that parents needed to be more aware of what was available for their child, for example, the offer of fluoride varnish for any child.   

School health/dental visitor – It was confirmed that there was no additional funding for dentists to make school visits however Members learnt that a community dental facility was available for school children with special educational needs who may have additional care requirements.  The facility was based at the Flying Scotsman with strong criteria used when assessing whether a child was eligible to receive treatment.  Unfortunately it was noted that the traditional school dental nurse was no longer a service that could be provided.

Due to schools efficient use of global text messaging systems it was suggested that they could be asked to send an annual information message reminding parents that children should be registered with a dentist and that the offer of fluoride varnish for any child should be made available to them.

It was confirmed that the Health Visiting Service was commissioned to provide families with a toothbrushing pack before their child reached 1 year old and supervised toothbrushing clubs were available in nurseries and key stage one settings.  It was stressed that the the toothbrushing club was also available to older primary school children but barriers to provision were sometimes created by school curriculum timetabling. 

Education packages – The approach to poor oral health by schools was questioned but Members learnt that despite educational packages being in place and promoted, it was dependent on school take up. 

It was suggested that the large screens provided in some schools be used to provide public information about the importance of good oral health.

Preventative work - Members were aware that tooth decay was the most common oral disease affecting children and that it was largely preventable.  It was noted that when a child started primary/infant school a health questionnaire was circulated to all families and included a section on whether their child was registered with a dentist.

In response to proposals for the use of images showing poor oral hygiene, it was noted that when such material was used as part of promotion to improve dental health, it had mixed results with initial success tending to wear off quickly.An initiative that had made a difference was supervised tooth brushing schemes that built good habits at an early age.  It was also noted that Sheffield University  ...  view the full minutes text for item 14.

The Senior Governance Officer presented the 2019/20 Scrutiny Work Plan for consideration and reminded Members of the current Forward Plan of key decisions.

Members acknowledged the draft recommendations relating to the review work undertaken on All Age Learning Disabilities and Autism, which had been previously circulated to the Panel.  Approval for these recommendations to be forwarded to the Executive was received.

RESOLVED that:-

1.            The Overview and Scrutiny Work Plan 2019/20 and Forward Plan of key decisions be noted;  and

2.            A letter be forwarded to the Executive detailing the Panel’s recommendations following the its review work undertaken on All Age Learning Disabilities and Autism.