Agenda item
TELDOC - Proposed Site Reconfiguration
Minutes:
Nakash Lewis, Head of Business and Operations
at TELDOC, began the meeting by outlining the reasoning for the
proposals for TELDOC’s reconfiguration;
- Restrictions of Lawley practice due
to infrastructure;
- no space to expand call centre capabilities
- Aqueduct historically used as call
centre for most sites, however it had reached maximum capacity and
therefore unable to accommodate Lawley calls. Consequently, longer
waiting times.
- Patient feedback and complaints
around front of house service, particularly access to call handlers
to gain appointments.
- Therefore site reconfiguration
needed, which moves away from traditional model.
- This is the need for a designated
Care Navigation Hub
- centralised hub handling all calls for TELDOC in a specially built administrative building, with the necessary infrastructure.
This was followed by Dr Rashpal Bhachu, Vice-Chair of TELDOC and Dr
Kwok Yin Ian Chan, Chairman of TELDOC summarising the benefits to
the patients;
- TELDOC continued to remain open is 7
days a week, 365 days a year with appointments available on
Saturdays and Sundays.
- Dedicated home visiting team (3
members) operating from 8:30am to 6:30pm to assist those that were
disabled, elderly and those with mobility issues.
- Site access; patients at Lawley were
able to go to other practices.
- a new surgery was not possible
therefore improving point of contact vital for improving overall
quality of care.
- Particularly busy periods such as
after bank holidays, there was an influx of calls. In the proposed
call centre, a further 50 staff could be put on to help with the
over flow of calls.
- Investing in this was cost neutral for the CCG, made more effective use of resources and did not ignore the integrated care economy policy that the council had already implemented.
The Chair asked the Committee to reflect on the collapse of the
Sutton Hill Practice and the importance of sustaining local primary
healthcare when discussing the proposals.
Members of the committee were invited to ask questions, and received responses as follows.
Why close the Aqueduct surgery? Why don’t you change this to the call centre?
The Vice-Chair of TELDOC said that Aqueduct was unfit for this purpose and that the GP only visited two mornings a week. The alternative practice to be used was a short distance away.
The Committee noted that this distance would be difficult for some individuals to access.
The Vice-Chair of TELDOC responded by saying that individuals who could not access the alternative practices could make use of the home handling service, also adding that Aqueduct didn’t have disabled parking.
What was the capacity of the Madeley Site?
The Committee were informed that converting the administration rooms into clinical rooms at smaller sites as well as closing Aqueduct would generate twice the amount of appointments. Likewise, this would lead to no staff redundancies but more opportunity for further recruitment.
What was the location for the proposed call centre?
The Vice-Chair of TELDOC informed the committee that the call centre would be in Telford and ran by Telford based staff. It would be made up of staff from the locations that had closed or had their administration rooms transformed into medical rooms. The Head of Business and Operations added that a common issue faced by patients was that they were unable to get through to call handlers, and that the new call centre would be able to house as many staff that were needed. 50 extra staff would be on hand at the hub to help relieve in peak calling times.
The Committee stated the importance for continuity for patients.
Dr Kwok Yin Ian Chan responded by saying that
for those with acute illness, access was the priority as
individuals would rather be seen as soon as possible rather than at
their usual site. In cases of more
chronic care, patients could specifically see their doctor at a
different site.
Members asked if TELDOC was one practice.
The Vice-Chair of TELDOC responded to this by explaining
that TELDOC was the merging of three different practices to make
one super-practice and consequently operated 9 sites.
What was the time scale for the project?
Essentially, as soon as possible. At the time of the meeting, the
estimation was within 3 to 6 months.
Population increase in Lawley was a cause for concern
on deliverable services.
The Committee were informed that patients from Lawley
were able to access other sites for their appointments.
In relation to the Lawley Practice and problems with parking,
members expressed concern that surgery parking could be abused by
people parking indiscriminately. Whilst it appeared that there was
a vacant plot nearby he had been made aware that it could not be
used for expansion as a car park due to it being designated a green
space.
The Vice-Chair of TELDOC went on to say that the allocated spaces
were very limited, and that there were significant problems with
parking on the street outside the site. It was anticipated that
this would be exacerbated by the installation of parking meters at
the Morrison’s site. Expanding parking provision at Lawley
would help a lot. TELDOC had spoken to developers, and understood
that they were not interested in the green space referred to.
Population increase would make it harder for patients
to book appointments. Would patients be cut off?
The Chairman of TELDOC replied to this by saying that
across the entire Telford area, there had been an upgrade in
telephone systems in order to deal with increased calls.
Technological difficulty came in Aqueduct as it did not have the
infrastructure to deal with the new (internet based) system.
The Chair allowed the experience of an individual in
the public gallery to be shared.
The Vice-Chair of TELDOC responded to this experience by
acknowledging the deterioration of call handling at Lawley, but
added that the point of the restructure was to increase call
handling capabilities, which was not possible to do internally at
Lawley, hence the need for the Care Navigation Centre.
Certain people would not be able to access the sites, were home
visits enough?
The Vice-Chair of TELDOC responded to this by referencing
Lightmoor surgery, which was only open 2 mornings a week, offered
no acute care and offered only pre-booked appointments. Those who
could not access the sites could opt for a home visit. Many people
transferred to Lawley anyway as Lightmoor could not offer certain
services.
How many appointments could Lightmoor do?
The Vice-Chair of TELDOC explained that a session was
equal to 10 appointments, and that Lightmoor currently provided two
sessions (therefore 20 appointments).
From the public gallery, the committee heard how an
individual was not granted a home visit based on a lack of paper
work despite a serious accident. Resistance came at the
administrative level who seemed unwilling to explore the situation
further but home visits were essential for recovery.
Ms. Ralph, Head of Primary Care, said that
the examples given raised alarm bells for the Clinical
Commissioning Group as it was in the catchment area, and such
challenges must be met. Further details were requested to be shared
with TELDOC. The Vice-Chair followed this by saying that staff at
the call centre would be more medically trained. The Chairman of
TELDOC added that TELDOC was trying to open the service more. Home
Visits depended on information from primary care.
The limited life span of Madeley surgery was called
into question. Why was the building not being fully
utilised?
The Vice-Chair of TELDOC said that efforts were being made to
acquire the state and ways for the space to be redeveloped would be
considered with potential for investment to make it future fit, as
well as utilising all the space.
What were the plans for Hadley surgery?
The Chairman of TELDOC explained that the plans for the
Hadley surgery were to make sure that it was future fit and
modernised. The Head of Primary Care said that the CCG were
conscious of population growth, and making sure it was fit for the
future and population growth. An audit of all premises was needed
in order to take into account the medical state energy
strategy.
Was there something similar to TELDOC in other
practices in Telford?
The Head of Primary Care responded by saying that there were some
other projects similar to TELDOC, such the Primary Care Networks
(PCN) which saw practices collaborating more in services, but not
to the same level as TELDOC. TELDOC was ahead in terms of national
policy. The Chairman of TELDOC added that the PCN’s did not
mitigate risk, and therefore there should be more scrutiny for
mergers.
Members raised concerns about problems with waiting
times on the phone?
The Head of Primary Care responded to this by saying
that a new telephone system called “Redcentric” was implemented across Telford (aside from
one practice) and had the ability to monitor how long people were
waiting on the phone and for how long.
At this point, TELDOC representatives and individuals in the public
gallery left the room in order for the committee to deliberate on
what they had heard.
In addition to the issues raised during the debate Members
reflected on potential accessibility concerns attached to
TELDOC’s site reconfiguration as it included site closures.
This led to a wider discussion on accessibility via public
transport (where it was suggested that the Chair may need to raise
the issue with the relevant Cabinet Member) and the criteria for a
visit from the Homecare Specialist team.
RESOLVED
– that the concerns discussed by the Committee be submitted
to the CCG.
Supporting documents: