To receive a report of the Lead Commissioner of Mental Health & Learning Disabilities Services for Trafford CCG.

The Associate Director of Commissioning for Trafford CCG gave a brief overview of the report the Committee had received and went through the main goals laid out in the paper. The inequality in life expectancy between those suffered from mental health issues and those who did not was a high priority for both Trafford CCG and the Council’s Public health team.

The officer from Greater Manchester Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (GMMH) informed the Committee of the new primary care delivery model. This model consisted of four teams which were spread out across the borough with one placed in each one of the four neighbourhoods. It was hoped that by being located in areas and placed with GPs the teams would be able to connect with residents in areas where community engagement had always been low. Each team had a varied skill set which was the result of partnership working between GMMH, MFT, CCG and the Voluntary sector. The new model was to be rolled out in stages to enable learning throughout the process to ensure that it was sustainable.

The Committee were informed about the role of the Care Navigator team within the model. Care Navigators were a team of professionals who went out into the Community in order to engage with people rather than waiting for them to come to services. When the team identified an individual who required support they would then link them to support through social prescribing and voluntary groups.

Councillor Haddad stated that there appeared to be a gap between the aspiration and the detail within the report. The GMMH officer responded that the Model was vague as the service would be built up and the details filled in as it was rolled out. The Committee were told that GMMH were already operating a similar model successfully in other areas of Greater Manchester and the team would now adapt it to Trafford. The Associate Director of Commissioning added that a more detailed operational model could be provided.

Councillor Haddad noticed that the report did not mention schools despite them being such an important partner in tackling mental health problems among children and young people.  The Associate Director of Commissioning responded that this gap had been noted at a recent mental health partnership meeting and that the CCG were already looking at how to develop that relationship. The Executive Member for Wellbeing spoke about the work that the Health and wellbeing Board were doing in relation to Mental Health across a person’s whole life course. The Council were working with the CCG on the transformation of mental health services and would support them in linking with schools where possible.

Councillor Taylor requested that case studies about the effectiveness of care navigators and the use of this model to understand how it benefits patients. The Associate Director of Commissioning agreed that the next update to the Committee would include case studies.

Councillor Brophy stated that there appeared to be a gap as the service did not appear to support people with learning disabilities who were more likely to develop mental health issues. The Councillor then asked whether the model had any provision for the education of GPs as they often did not refer patients with mental health issues to services available to help with those issues. The Officer from GMMH responded that they were currently going out to inform GPs about the model and their role in referring patients.

Councillor Duffield Declared an interest as she worked in North Manchester as part of the Be Well service.

Councillor Duffield asked about the work that they had been doing in North Manchester and what they had learnt. Councillor Duffield then asked whether there were figures for how many people they would be engaging with in Trafford. Councillor Duffield also asked how they planned to engage with GPs in the area. The Officer from GMMH answered that the learning that had been gained from the work in North Manchester had directly influenced and informed the design of the service in Trafford. The numbers of people that they would be working with were unknown and GMMH were focused on ensuring that they provided a quality service to whoever they engaged with. The Associate Director of Commissioning told the Committee that the model had been developed with input from GPs from the start and throughout its creation.

The Chair of HealthWatch Trafford asked whether funding for the service had been guaranteed going forward. The Officer from GMMH said that he did not have the figures to hand but that they could be provided after the meeting. The Associate Director of Commissioning added that the service had guaranteed funding for the first year from the 1^st April 2019. This funding came from the transformation funding that Trafford had been awarded which would not be recurring. In addition to the funding data the Committee would be provided with detail as to staffing structure and recruitment strategy.

Councillor Evans raised concerns of delivering a service when the number of patients was not known and wondered if there were any solid figures that the service had been developed upon. The Councillor also asked whether there was a social media aspect of the service for engaging hard to reach young people. The Associate Director of Commissioning responded that whilst there were not any solid numbers the transformation had been based upon models and estimates. Those details were not available at the meeting but the Associate Director of Commissioning offered to circulate the information after the meeting.

The Chair summed up that the Committee would endorse Model of mental health services as recommended by the report. The Chair commented that the new direction that the service was going was a positive start but there was a lot of work which needed to be done to flesh out the model so that it met its aspirations.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the report be noted.

2)    That the Committee endorse the Integrated Primary Care Model for Mental Health Services.

3)    That a more detailed operational model of the service be provided to the Committee.

4)    That any further updates delivered to the Committee are to include case studies showing the efficacy of the model.

5)    That the Committee is to receive information regarding the funding, staffing, and recruitment of the service.

6)    That the models and estimates used in the development of the model be shared with the Committee.