Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Agenda Item 6 Health Scrutiny Committee 20 July 2009 Emergency Heart Attack Services in Suffolk Summary This paper provides information on Emergency Heart Attack Services in Suffolk. It considers changes proposed by the East of England Specialised Commissioning Group, their decision making process and concerns raised on behalf of Suffolk people. Background information is included about a review commissioned jointly by the East of England Specialised Commissioning Group and NHS Suffolk when the concerns of Suffolk residents became known and were given voice through the local media. There will be an opportunity for the Committee to find out the outcomes of the review from Professor Boyle who led the review. The paper also includes, for information of the members of the Committee and for the public generally, information about heart attacks, an understanding of which is helpful in terms of looking at the issues raised in relation to proposed changes. Objective of the Scrutiny The objective of this scrutiny is to provide the Committee with an opportunity to: a) Gain an understanding of when heart attacks occur and how patients are treated, and some of the medical terms used. b) Consider the reasons for changes in relation to primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) and what factors were taken into account in coming to this decision. c) Scrutinise the impact of proposed changes to the treatment of heart attack patients in Suffolk. The Committee may, having considered the paper and information provided at the meeting: a) Identify further improvements that could be made to communication arrangements from NHS in relation to proposed and actual service changes. b) Raise further issues of concern that it would like the Specialised Commissioning Group to consider. c) Decide that the proposed arrangements are not in the interests of the people of Suffolk and give reasons why. 13 Contact Details Name Telephone E-mail Scrutiny Officer Sue Morgan 01473 264512 [email protected] 14 Local Councillor All Councillors Introduction 1. The Health Scrutiny Committee has a wide ranging remit. It may review any matter relating to the planning, provision and operation of health services in the county. It may report to Cabinet and local NHS bodies or other organisations on matters it has reviewed or scrutinised. 2. The Health Scrutiny Committee has 8 County Councillors and one co-opted representative from each if the seven district and borough councils in Suffolk. District and borough councillors co-opted onto the Health Scrutiny Committee may vote on all matters relating to health service issues. They may not vote on issues relating to the County Council’s Constitution. 3. To help in carrying out its role the Health Scrutiny Committee may create joint committees with other councils affected by a health service issue. Main terms referred to in this paper 4. This section includes some definitions that offer an explanation of some of the terms used in this scrutiny. Health scrutiny committee members are local government elected representatives, and an explanation of the terms will assist them and members of the public in understanding the issues involved. A full glossary is provided at the end of this paper. 5. The following definitions are from the document ‘Consultations by Specialised Services Commissioners’ published by the Centre for Public Scrutiny as a practical guide for health scrutiny committees. Specialised Commissioning Groups (SCGs) are formal joint committees of PCTs, and are responsible for the collaborative commissioning of specialised services, including medium/low security mental health services and screening services. They are coterminous with the boundaries of the 10 Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs). Specialised services are services provided in a small number of specialist centres to catchment populations of more than a million people.They range from bone marrow and kidney transplants to the provision of secure forensic mental health services. What constitutes a specialised service may change over time, influenced by developments in treatments and clinical skills. So as well as new specialised services being introduced into the NHS, some other services will become more commonplace and cease to be specialised. Specialised services are subject to collaborative commissioning arrangements rather than being commissioned by individual PCTs. Specialised services providers are those providers with the recognised capacity, skills and resources to provide specific, high quality specialised services. Providers of specialised services have to address a number of challenges, including training specialist staff, supporting high quality research programmes and making the best use of scarce resources such as staff expertise, expensive equipment or the use of donated organs. These challenges influence the cost, mode of delivery and availability of specialised services. 6. PPCI (Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention), often referred to as primary angioplasty, is a treatment for heart attack patients which unblocks an artery carrying blood to the heart. A small balloon is inserted on the end of a long thin tube, via an artery in the groin or arm, and guided to the point of blockage. Then the balloon is inflated to allow a rigid "stent" (tube) to be put in place which squashes the blockage and opens up the artery allowing blood to flow freely. The procedure needs to be 15 carried out by highly trained cardiologists in a catheterisation laboratory (cath lab) in a hospital. 7. Heart attack – the following definition is taken from ‘Treatment of Heart Attack National Guidance Final Report of the National Infarct Angioplasty Project (NIAP) published by the Department of Health. A heart attack is said to have occurred when the myocardium (heart muscle) is damaged as a result of impaired blood supply. This is known as a myocardial infarction. The amount of damage is greatest when the blood supply to part of the heart is cut off altogether as a result of a thrombus (blood clot formation) within one of the coronary arteries ( blood vessels) supplying that area of the heart. Under these circumstances, the electrocardiogram (ECG) recorded after the onset of occlusion will usually show an abnormality termed ‘ST elevation’. Patients suffering from this condition are said to have sustained ‘ST elevation myocardial infarction’, abbreviated to STEMI. Scrutiny Focus 8. The scope of this scrutiny has been developed to provide the Committee with information to come to a view on the following key questions: a) Who is most at risk of heart attack? b) What can be done to reduce the liklihood of heart attack? c) What support, advice and guidance is available to the general public d) Why are changes to the current service needed? e) What factors were considered in making decisions about these services? f) What monitoring arrangements will there be to assess the impact of the new arrangements for heart attack victims in Suffolk? g) What information is there about the implications of these changes for people in Suffolk? h) What action has been taken to address local people’s concerns about the changes? i) How are the findings of the action taken going to be communicated? j) What is the impact on the commissioning of coronary care facilities at Ipswich Hospital? Background on regional health scrutiny relating to Primary Angioplasty 9. Suffolk Health Scrutiny Committee is represented at an East of England Regional Health Overview and Scrutiny Chairs’ Forum (the Chairs’ Forum). This role has been filled by Councillor David Yorke-Edwards. 10. The Chairs’ Forum is not a scrutiny body but may make recommendations that a joint scrutiny committee is established and may propose terms of reference for that scrutiny committee. When it does make a recommendation, each of the respective Health and Overview and Scrutiny Committees are asked to agree to joint arrangements and nominate members. 11. To prevent delays in establishing joint scrutiny arrangements the Suffolk Health Scrutiny Committee nominated a member and a substitute member to take part in any regional scrutiny (Councillor Vincent, who is a co-opted member from Forest Heath 16 District Council and Councillor Michelle Bevan Margetts, a co-opted member from Ipswich Borough Council respectively). 12. The Chairs’ Forum is administered by one of the authorities in the Eastern region for a period of one year, rotating with the Chairmanship. Currently Essex fulfils this role, with a handover to another authority (not Suffolk) due in September 2009. 13. A Regional Health Scrutiny Committee was established to scrutinise the East of England Strategic Health Authority (SHA) strategy, “Towards the best, together – a Clinical Vision for our NHS, now and for the next decade”. Unfortunately, due to unforeseen circumstances, Suffolk Health Scrutiny Committee was not represented on the joint Committee. 14. The report of the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee was made available as a public document. The following points are relevant in that the strategic document referred to a range of ‘Acute Services’: The Joint Committee was concerned that it did not have before it information relating to the timescales and locations of the specialised centres and was not therefore able to make any judgements about the accessibility by patients to these services. The Committee welcomes the reconfiguration of triage and patient pathways to provide a patient focus and perspective. The Committee also welcomes the provision of 24/7 acute urgent services. 15. The Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee recommended (among other things) “that at an early date the Strategic Health Authority publishes and consults on its proposals for the function and location of specialist centres.” 16. At the 17 March 2009 Chairs’ Forum a member of the Specialised Commissioning Group (SCG) sought the views of Chairmen about potential consultation on Primary Angioplasty Services with a closing date of end of June 2009. It was promoted as a new service and in line with the principles set out in the strategic document ‘Towards the Best Together’. 17. The Chairs’ Forum considered that the timescales would prevent consideration of this matter by a regional Joint Health Scrutiny Committee because councils do not hold meetings during the six weeks period preceding the election date. Further, as the elections were held on 4 June most councils would not be in a position to appoint chairmen and committee members until the last week of June. 18. It was agreed that the SHA/SCG should be asked if was possible to defer the end of the consultation process (to end in July if possible) so that Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committees including members from the newly reconstituted Councils could be set up for both Pancreatic Cancer and for Primary Angioplasty. This was subsequently agreed for Pancreatic Cancer services and a Joint Health Scrutiny Committee was established and held on 30 June. Further information is included in the Committee’s Information Bulletin for this meeting. 19. On 8 April 2009, the East of England Specialised Commissioning Group wrote to the Secretary of the Chair’s Forum regarding Primary angioplasty services, enclosing a briefing note (Copy attached as Evidence Set 1 Appendix E) suggesting that: “there is not a requirement to consult further on this, as the proposals are in line with the model set out in the Strategic Health Authority’s strategic document ‘Towards the Best Together’ which has already been commented on by a regional Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee. 20. The secretary of the Chairs Forum asked for a response from the Chairmen of each authority. Suffolk Health Scrutiny Committee’s Chairman considered the suggestion 17 and the Scrutiny Officer responded to the Secretary of the Chair’s Forum by phone to say that in Suffolk we take the view that it is not within the remit of the Health Scrutiny Committee to tell an NHS body that it does not need to consult and that it is a decision for that body. 21. On 27 April the Secretary of the Chair’s Forum wrote to all members of the Eastern Region Health Scrutiny Chairs Forum about Primary Angioplasty Services and said: ‘the majority of responses I have had from Chairs is that you support the stance suggested by Simon Wood (representing the Strategic Health Authority) i.e. that there is not a requirement to consult further on this as the proposals are in line with the model set out in the Strategic Health Authority’s strategic document ‘Towards the Best Together’ which has already been commented on by a regional Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee. 22. The Suffolk view was that this letter from the Secretary of the Chairs’ Forum related only to the establishment of a Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Accordingly arrangements were put in hand for local scrutiny of the proposals by the Suffolk Health Scrutiny Committee. 23. Although there had been an extraordinary meeting of the Health Scrutiny Committee scheduled for 21 April, because the letter from the Secretary of the Chairs’ Forum was not sent until 27 April for the reasons set out above it was not possible to scrutinise the matter until July. 24. The next scheduled Health Scrutiny Committee Meeting after 27 April was 20 July 2009 (election period intervening). After receiving the letter from the Secretary of the Chair’s Forum, the Strategic Health Authority, the Specialised Commissioning Group and NHS Suffolk were contacted on behalf of the Suffolk Health Scrutiny Committee about scrutiny of ‘emergency heart services’ to provide an opportunity for scrutiny at local level. Each of these organisations were invited to provide information and to send a nominated representative to attend the Scrutiny Committee on 20 July 2009. Review of impact of the proposals in Suffolk 25. In May 2009, NHS Suffolk published information about a review associated with the implementation of the strategic decision in relation to PPCI (primary percutaneous coronary intervention). Professor Boyle, National Director for Heart Disease and Stroke and a team were being asked to look at two issues: First, assurance that the arrangements for the introduction of the new service for the east Suffolk population are robust and take due account of the issues presented by our rural and coastal areas. Second, to give advice on the overall provision of PPCI (Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) in the area and coronary angioplasty services at Ipswich Hospital. 26. While Professor Boyle and his team are undertaking the review the implementation of PPCI in east Suffolk will be postponed. Patients in east Suffolk who suffer a STEMI heart attack will continue to receive pre-hospital thrombolysis, the current treatment. 27. The implementation of PPCI in the rest of the east of England will not be affected. Papworth, the Norfolk and Norwich and Harefield Hospitals will continue to deliver the service which will also be extended into Essex, from Basildon Hospital, on 1 September. 28. Any action that could have been taken by the Health Scrutiny Committee at this time would at the best have duplicated the work being undertaken by Professor Boyle and his team. 18 29. Members of the Health Scrutiny Committee were informed, before the election date of 4 June, of the addition of this new item ‘Emergency Heart Services’ on the Committee’s Forward Work Programme. 30. NHS Suffolk has assisted the consideration of this item by co-ordinating information for the Committee. The information has come from different sources as referred to below. Evidence Set 1 31. Evidence Set 1 – Review of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - a brief paper written by the Director of Strategic Commissioning at NHS Suffolk. The paper a) provides Health Scrutiny Committee members with background information to the National Director of Heart and Stroke review of plans to implement PPCI in the East of England and particular in respect of the Suffolk population. b) Explains that, at the time the written papers were prepared, Professor Boyle had not presented his report and recommendations, but indicates he will attend the Health Scrutiny Committee on 20 July to report the outcomes from his review to them. c) Outlines that NHS Suffolk will lead an open communications campaign to inform Suffolk people of the plans and future provision of heart attack services. d) States that NHS Suffolk and the East of England recognise and apologises for the lack of engagement and information which has led to the high degree of public anxiety and concern about the planned changes to heart attack services. e) Gives an undertaking that NHS Suffolk will ensure that before any changes are made, there is clear communication through open sessions across the county. f) Refers to the following briefing information for members:Paper Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Item Dr Sarah Clark’s presentation on heart attack centres to give background information Specialised Commissioning Group presentation to Professor Boyle on 18th June 2009 about plans to implement PPCI and how they had been developed and addressing key Suffolk issues. Pages 39 to 43 refer to ‘issues around this review for Suffolk’. Anne Nicholls, Member of Suffolk Link and Chair of the Independent Lay Advisory Board (ILAG) to the PCT presentation made to Professor Roger Boyle about public concerns The agenda for Professor Boyle’s review team visit Specialised Commissioning Group briefing note issued to HSC Chairs through the East of England Chair’s Forum Local demographic information Data about incidence of heart attacks in Suffolk A summary of the concerns raised by NHS Suffolk about these plans Evidence Set 2 19 32. Anne Nicholls, Member of Suffolk Link and Chair of the Independent Lay Advisory Board (ILAG) to the PCT has submitted a paper on ‘Proposed changes to cardiac services’. It highlights local concerns, particularly from people in east Suffolk, and has been produced after obtaining views from members of the public, members of the Interim Suffolk LINks and the Interim Lay Advisory Group (ILAG) and assessing press coverage to identify issues raised. (It expands on information submitted to Professor Boyle’s review, referred to in Evidence Set 1 as Appendix C) Evidence Set 3 33. Information which a member of the public could access for information about heart attacks, causes and treatments. Evidence Set 4 34. This is an extracted minute of the Ipswich Borough Council meeting on 24 June regarding concern about proposed changes to services at Ipswich hospital. Evidence Set 5 35. This is a copy of a letter from Suffolk Coastal District Council to the Chief Executive of NHS Suffolk regarding concerns about proposed Heart Attack Services. Other Information 36. Further background information has not been included with these papers. Schedule A includes a list of relevant information. Copies of which are available from the Scrutiny Team Manager. 37. NHS Suffolk’s concerns about the PPCI services are referred to in a letter which was considered by the NHS Suffolk Board on 27 May 2009. 38. Page 43 of Appendix B, ‘Why weren’t local people asked?’ refers to Health Scrutiny Committee input. This is addressed in paragraphs 13 to 24 in this paper. 39. Professor Roger Boyle, the National Director of Heart and Stroke Review is expected to present his report and recommendations to the Health Scrutiny Committee on 20 July and to take questions from the Committee. ‘Mending Hearts and Brains: Clinical case for change:Report by Professor Roger Boyle, National Director for Heart Disease and Stroke’ provides background information about the reason for changing the way heart attack is treated. It is available on the following website: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuid ance/DH_063282 40. Anne Nicholls, Member of Suffolk Link and Chair of the Independent Lay Advisory Board (ILAG) to the PCT has been invited to attend the meeting. 41. Tracey Dowling, Director of Strategic Commissioning at NHS Suffolk has been invited to attend the meeting on behalf of NHS Suffolk. 42. Trevor Myers, of the East of England Specialised Commissioning Group has been invited to attend the meeting. He has given his apologies, but should be sending a representative. 43. Members of the public have been in contact with the County Council and expressed an interest in the Health Scrutiny Committee’s meeting. Some have indicated that would like to attend the meeting, and may, if given the opportunity, give their comments. 44. The Chairman of the Committee has complete discretion over who is allowed to speak at the meeting and for how long. 20 Officer recommendation 45. It is recommended that the Committee: a) Consider the written evidence submitted as part of this paper b) Hear the report and recommendations of the Review by Professor Boyle c) Decide if the concerns of local people have been adequately addressed in the report and recommendations d) Seek feedback from local people at the meeting e) Identify any further recommendations to either the Specialised Commissioning Group, the SHA or NHS Suffolk. f) Determine what future scrutiny is required and how this will take place. Supporting Information For more information on ‘Towards the best, together’ visit: www.eoe.nhs.uk/vision Below are links to the NIAP report setting out the evidence for PPCI and 'Mending Hearts and Brains' the report by Prof Boyle on the future treat of heart and brain treatment in the UK. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuid ance/DH_089455 http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuid ance/DH_063282 ‘Consultations by Specialised Services Commissioners’ published in July 2007 by the Centre for Public Scrutiny. ‘Mending Hearts and Brains: Clinical case for change:Report by Professor Roger Boyle, National Director for Heart Disease and Stroke’, published by Department of Health 2006 http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuid ance/DH_063282 NHS Choices website http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/heart-attack/Pages/Introduction.aspx Glossary Angioplasty - the stretching open of an artery with a balloon catheter BCIS - British Cardiovascular Intervention Society BCS – British Cardiovascular Society Commissioning - is the overall term used to describe the process of planning, funding, procuring and monitoring healthcare services. It can include all or some of these functions. CTB - Call to balloon time: the length of time between the patient requesting help and receiving PPCI for a STEMI CTN - Call to needle time: the length of time between the patient requesting help and being given thrombolysis for a STEMI Coronary arteries: arteries supplying the heart muscle with oxygen CPG Clinical Pathway Group 21 DANAMI DH – Department of Health Electrocardiogram (ECG): an electrical trace of the heart muscle’s activity EAAST – East of England Ambulance Service Trust EoE – East of England ERPHO – Eastern Region Public Health Observatory Heart attack - A heart attack is said to have occurred when the myocardium (heart muscle) is damaged as a result of impaired blood supply. This is known as a myocardial infarction. The amount of damage is greatest when the blood supply to part of the heart is cut off altogether as a result of a thrombus (blood clot formation) within one of the coronary arteries ( blood vessels) supplying that area of the heart. Under these circumstances, the electrocardiogram (ECG) recorded after the onset of occlusion will usually show an abnormality termed ‘ST elevation’. Patients suffering from this condition are said to have sustained ‘ST elevation myocardial infarction’, abbreviated to STEMI. HAC – Heart Attack Centre HOSC – Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee/Health Scrutiny Committee MI - Myocardial infarction - a heart attack with damage to the heart muscle Myocardium: the heart muscle NIAP - National Infarct Angioplasty Project – a feasibility study looking at how far primary angioplasty can be rolled out as the main treatment for heart attack in place of clot-busting drugs. NNUH – Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital OOH – Out of Hours PCI PHAC – Papworth Heart Attack Centre PHT pre hospital thrombolysis PPCI (Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention), often referred to as primary angioplasty, is a treatment for heart attack patients which unblocks an artery carrying blood to the heart. A small balloon is inserted on the end of a long thin tube, via an artery in the groin or arm, and guided to the point of blockage. Then the balloon is inflated to allow a rigid "stent" (tube) to be put in place which squashes the blockage and opens up the artery allowing blood to flow freely. The procedure needs to be carried out by highly trained cardiologists in a catheterisation laboratory (cath lab) in a hospital. SCG – Specialised Commissioning Group SHA: Strategic Health Authority, based near Cambridge for East of England ST segment: a part of the ECG trace STEMI: ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (a heart attack in which the ECG shows ST segment elevation) Stent - tubular metal mesh designed to hold open a coronary artery once it has been stretched by angioplasty Thrombolysis: removal of clot using clot-busting medication given via a drip Thrombus: a blood clot 22