Mr. Jeff James, Chief Executive of Gloucestershire Partnership Trust submitted an analysis of the responses to the Consultation on Changes to Mental Health Services in Gloucestershire to members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday August 22nd.
Mr James stressed that the comments he made were subject to decisions of his Board members when they next meet on August 31st in the Cinema, Gloucester Guildhall, Eastgate Street, Gloucester at 10 a.m. Members of the public are cordially invited to attend this important meeting.
Mr James said that the decisions taken by his Board will not be implemented until October 1st in order to allow the Strategic Health Authority to complete its financial review of local N H S funding and make known its findings and recommendations.
Mr James gave his views on a number of areas of concern. He said:-
- that with regard to older peoples inpatient services it was possible that a two site option could be considered by the Board, but he said that should this be the case the two sites would be at Cheltenham and Gloucester.
Clearly we are very concerned that Weavers Croft inpatient and day hospital services would not continue should this decision be taken.
We are strongly committed to the continuation of these services for the reasons stated in our response to the consultation. See our response on this site.
- The analysis submitted to the OSC of 959 responses shows that with regard to older peoples inpatient service proposals 250 responses did not respond to this particular mental health proposal, 704 responses opposed the proposals and only 5 responses supported the proposals.
Mr James said that the great majority of responses came from Stroud.
- Mr James said that the Board's prime consideration was the views of the commissioners of the service, who had agreed the proposed changes, and the responses of the 704 people who opposed the changes were not as important an influence on the Boards decision.
We can only suggest that consultations are designed to determine the views of service users and to listen to professional views only would be contrary to the meaning and spirit of the consultation. The White paper "Our Health, our care, our say" places great value on the views of service users and we feel sure that that the Board of the Partnership Trust will honour this prime Government principle.
- Mr James said that the Board will consider a proposal to continue day services for existing users, but this would mean that the Partnership Trust would cease funding such services for new clients. This will give the County Council and other partners time to consider other options for providing these services.
- Mr James said that the question of a social enterprise organisation managing services for local people was a complicated matter. He said that he felt that the proposal for such an organisation coming from the Stroud District had not yet been fully thought through. Alternatives, such as the model proposed, must produce savings - a reduction in the cost of providing services, he said.
We understand why Mr James is saying this because we have not yet discussed detailed plans with him.
Ideally we would prefer the Partnership Trust to continue to run our mental health services for older people as they presently do, commissioned, funded and provided by the National Health Service.
We would assure local people that a great deal of work is at present being done and further details of the social enterprise organisation will be released shortly. We know that fully detailed plans for such an organisation will take a considerable amount of investigation and we are looking to the Partnership Trust Board to allow us that period of time.
Dr. Robert Maxwell, the Chairman of the Partnership Trust said that the Board will not want to rush decisions but they are finance constrained. They will seek to provide the best service within the budget they are given. They will take decisions in the light of the responses to the consultation. We may be able to satisfy some, but not all, he said.