Agenda item

(A period not exceeding 15 minutes for questions from members of the public.)

Councillor Richard Allan Jones read out the following statement to the Board:-

“This narrative relates to recent actual occurrences to a terminally ill adult resident of Doncaster.  Previous to this, the person had suffered a pulmonary embolism and had been admitted to Worksop hospital and recovered.  Subsequently, having had multiple falls in her assisted living home she was transferred to Worksop hospital, and after 3 weeks was assessed suitable for transfer to Tickhill Road.  Unfortunately, 24 hours later she had another fall and was admitted again to DRI critical ward.  24 hours later staff at DRI had the intention to return this person to the supported accommodation.  A relative objected to this proposal as it was very obvious the person was not capable physically of being returned to her own home.

The patient was then transferred to Positive Steps social care assessment centre, where she is now being cared for.  Positive Steps were given no medical history of the patient.  Throughout the whole of these events from Worksop/Doncaster/Tickhill/Doncaster transfers it became very clear that the patient’s information and wellbeing was compromised.  The inability of the person to communicate to staff was always going to be the issue.  The relative had to relate the previous situations relevant to the person’s needs on each occasion when being transferred and it was very clear poor communication existed throughout the process.

One example was from being fitted with a catheter which was essential for this person and for the treatment of a urinary infection, it was removed when the patient was transferred but not refitted, the relative having been told under no circumstance should the person be without the catheter.  It had to be refitted as an emergency.

I relate this issue about information being transferred with the patient which has not been in the best interest of the patient or the relative who found it impossible to understand why important information is not appropriately transferred.”

In response, Richard Parker stated that he firstly wished to apologise for the experience that the patient in question and their family had gone through during the person’s treatment.  He explained that usually patient information accompanied them when they were being transferred.  He stated that he would personally review this case and requested that Cllr Jones pass on the details of the patient to enable him to investigate the matter.  He added that in reviewing the case, all NHS services/colleagues involved would want to look at the patient’s journey in order to identify the areas where procedures could be tightened.

Anthony Fitzgerald stated that he wished to echo Richard’s apologies, and explained that this highlighted the very reason why investment was being made into a digital integrated care record for patients, in order to improve the flow of information at every step of a patient’s journey.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In addressing the Board, Mr Tim Brown began by congratulating Dr Rupert Suckling on his award of an MBE, which he felt was well deserved.

Mr Brown stated that he had been raising issues of racial inequality for over 20 years.  As a parent, he believed in fairness and equality and recognised the difficulties faced by his children to reach their potential.  He referred to the fact that his son had previously not been able to secure an entry level job with Doncaster Council despite having decent qualificationsas he had been told that he needed to have had previous work experience with the Council.  Mr Brown also highlighted that it was still evident that there was a distinct lack of people from BME communities holding senior positions across organisations such as the NHS and the Police.

Mr Brown asked how people like him could support the response to OFSTED’s findings in relation to Doncaster’s Children’s Services.  He also referred to the NHS Race and Health Observatory and asked how NHS organisations responded to its findings.

Finally, he welcomed the proposed establishment of a Fairness and Wellbeing Commission and hoped that people like him would be able to participate.

Having thanked Mr Brown for his statement and questions, the Chair confirmed that Mr Brown’s concerns previously raised in relation to his son’s job application with the Council had been addressed by the Cabinet member at the time, with changes being made to the Council’s procedures.  The Chair advised that included within the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion priorities for this year was Looked After Children and the importance of closing the gap between those children who are looked after and those who are not.  The Chair also advised that she would ask the Doncaster Children’s Services Trust how Mr Brown could be involved with the Ofsted recovery plan.

Dr Rupert Suckling explained how NHS organisations took into account the findings from NHS Race and Health Observatory reports.  He also highlighted that one of the priorities in the Board’s Annual Report, which was later on today’s agenda, was to address health inequalities, reviewing access to services including primary care, health outcomes by population groups and establishing a Fairness and Wellbeing Commission, also to be discussed later in the meeting.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

With regard to Stroke services, Mr Trevor Illsley asked for further information to be provided on the role of this Board in preventing strokes.  In particular, he asked how the Health and Wellbeing Board will work upstream to stop strokes happening in the first place. 

In response, Richard Parker outlined the current arrangements in relation to stroke service provision in the area and future plans/challenges moving forward.  Dr Rupert Suckling added that the Board and all partners tried to focus as upstream as possible through the delivery plans and the three life course stages.