Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 25 January 2022 as an accurate record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 25 January 2022 were agreed as an accurate record.

Members and co-opted Members of the Council are reminded that, in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct and the statutory provisions of the Localism Act, they are required to consider in advance of each meeting whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI), an other registrable interest (ORI) or a non-registrable interest (NRI) in relation to any matter on the agenda.  If advice is needed, Members should contact the Monitoring Officer in good time before the meeting.  

If any Member or co-opted Member of the Council identifies a DPI or ORI which they have not already registered on the Council’s register of interests or which requires updating, they should complete the disclosure form which can be obtained from Democratic Services at any time, copies of which will be available at the meeting for return to the Monitoring Officer.

Members and co-opted Members are required to disclose any DPIs and ORIs at the meeting.  

·         Where the matter relates to a DPI they may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must not stay in the meeting unless granted a dispensation.  

·         Where the matter relates to an ORI they may not vote on the matter unless granted a dispensation.   

·         Where a Member or co-opted Member has an NRI which directly relates to their financial interest or wellbeing, or that of a relative or close associate, they must disclose the interest at the meeting, may not take part in any discussion or vote on the matter and must not stay in the meeting unless granted a dispensation.  Where a matter affects the NRI of a Member or co-opted Member, section 9 of Appendix B of the Code of Conduct sets out the test which must be applied by the Member to decide whether disclosure is required.

The Chair will invite Members to make their disclosure orally at the commencement of Agenda item 3, to be recorded in the minutes.

There were no disclosures of interest made at the meeting.

To receive notice of any business not on the agenda which in the opinion of the Chair, by reason of special circumstances, be considered as a matter of urgency.

Although, there were no urgent items of business for consideration by the Health & Social Care Sub-Committee at this meeting, it was agreed that the Healthwatch Croydon Manager, Gordon Kay, would provide feedback on latest report from his organisation at the end of the meeting.

The Health & Social Care Sub-Committee is provided with an update for its consideration on the recovery and response of health and care services in the borough to the pressures caused by the winter season and the Covid-19 pandemic.

The Sub-Committee considered a presentation set out on pages 13 to 24 of the agenda and a second presentation included in a supplement to the main agenda, which provided an update on the recovery of services and the ongoing response to the Covid-19 Pandemic and winter pressures.  These presentations had been provided to allow the Sub-Committee to understand the current risks to service provision and to seek reassurance that these risks were being managed.

The presentations were delivered to the Sub-Committee by the Croydon Health Services Chief Executive and Place-Based Leader for Health, Matthew Kershaw, the Corporate Director for Adult Social Care and Health, Annette McPartland and the Director of Public Health, Rachel Flowers. These presentation can be viewed on the following links: -

Covid-19 Response & Winter Pressures

Public Health – Living Safely with Covid-19

Following the delivery of the presentations, the Sub-Committee was given the opportunity to ask questions on the information provided. The first question highlighted that the early stages of the pandemic saw an increased loss of life in care home settings, but in subsequent waves Croydon had performed well in this area. As such it was questioned what lessons had been learnt. It was advised that limiting the vulnerability of older people to the effects of covid-19 had been identified as a priority by health and care professionals early in the pandemic, which had led to the safeguards introduced becoming an example of good practice. The introduction of the vaccination and the work invested into ensuring the vaccination rate was as high as possible had played a key role in improving resilience to the impact of covid-19. The vaccination work would continue as it was essential to safeguard against the potential impact from any future waves of the virus.

Given the rising cost of living nationally, particularly the cost of food and fuel, was likely to lead to increased poverty, it was questioned whether plans were in place to ensure the resulting rise in demand for services could be managed. It was acknowledged that inflation and poverty were likely to be game changes which would impact on many areas of people’s lives. The rising cost of inflation had been built into the Adult Social Care budget, but whether this amount was sufficient would need to be closely monitored. It was likely that people would be coming to social care for the first time and as such it would be important to ensure that good advice and guidance was available at the ‘front door’.

In response to a question about how home visits by midwives and health visitors had been impacted by the pandemic, it was advised that these services had been maintained through the introduction of precautions, particularly earlier in the pandemic. This had included virtual visits in some cases to limit risks, but these services were now running at their pre-pandemic levels. The Council’s Public Health team had worked closely with colleagues at the Croydon University Hospital throughout the pandemic to ensure health visits could  ...  view the full minutes text for item 10/22

The Health and Social Care Sub-Committee is asked to consider this presentation and accompany report which provides an overview of Mental Health provision in Croydon borough including:-

•        what is available,

•        the current level of performance,

•        the impact of the pandemic

•        the future vision.

The Sub-Committee considered a report, set out on pages 25 to 58 of the agenda, which provided an overview of mental health services in the borough. The report was introduced by representatives from the various service providers in the borough, including the South West London Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), South London & Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM), Child and Adolescent mental Health Service (CAMS) and the Council’s Adult Social Care team.  A copy of presentation delivered can be found on the following link: -

Overview of Mental Health Provision in the Borough

Following the presentation, the Sub-Committee had the opportunity to ask questions about the information provided. It was noted that the waiting times for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) seemed to be high in Croydon and it was questioned whether there was a similar issue in other SLaM localities. In response, it was highlighted that Croydon was the only borough with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) pathway provided by SLaM and it was this pathway that had a significant waiting time. The numbers waiting for the ASD service had grown throughout the pandemic and work was underway to address the backlog with 100 appointments expected to be completed by April 2022 and a tender for further 450 appointments in 2022-23.

It was confirmed that the current waiting time for the ASD pathway was on average 52 weeks, which was not acceptable and the reason why tackling the backlog to manage demand against capacity was a priority. The Sub-Committee accepted that the backlog was being addressed but agreed that further scrutiny was needed at a later date to be reassured that the plans being developed were being effective. It was agreed that the Children & Young People Sub-Committee would be asked to keep the performance of CAMHS under review as part of its work programme in the forthcoming year.

It was noted from the information provided that staffing seemed to be an issue for mental health services and the partners were asked for their assessment of their key strengths and weaknesses. Partnership working was highlighted as a strength with recognition that no one service could address all the mental health need in the borough. There was a committed workforce in Croydon with skilled staff, who tended to be loyal to the borough with staff development being a strength, however recruiting new staff was challenging.

It was recognised that the crisis pathway was an area for development, which was currently being addressed. It could also be challenging to move complex cases on from the Accident and Emergency department to other services.  While early intervention in schools and child wellbeing practitioners was a strength that needed to be developed further.

An update was requested on the work to improve access to talking therapies through GPs surgeries. It was confirmed that patient access to talking therapies had been targeted for improvement as evidence indicated that once people arrived in the service their recovery rate was quicker. SLaM was working closely with colleagues across  ...  view the full minutes text for item 11/22

The Sub-Committee received a verbal update from Gordon Kay, the manager of Healthwatch Croydon on the most recent review completed by the service.

The most recently completed report was on Personal Independence Coordinators, who helped people frequently attending the Accident and Emergency service, but who may need wider support. This review had been commissioned by Age UK and had included 64 interviews with users of the service, which revealed that in addition to physical and mental health support the provision of support with finance was also important.

The review had found that clients completing the programme tended to find their confidence had increased and they felt less stress. Although from the feedback provided 1 in 6 participants saw no improvement, 79% had seen a long-term impact. It was recommended that further work was targeted towards those who felt the programme had not worked to find out the reasons for this. It may be the case that there is a need for extra support for some once the service ended and that clearer signposting was needed to other services. Age UK had taken on these recommendations and would be introducing a new analysis tool for the programme and was looking to provide after support where needed.

The following motion is to be moved and seconded where it is proposed to exclude the press and public from the remainder of a meeting:

“That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within those paragraphs indicated in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended.”

This motion was not required.