Proposed Merger of CCGs in County Durham and the Tees Valley Dr - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
proposed merger of ccgs in county durham and the tees
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Proposed Merger of CCGs in County Durham and the Tees Valley Dr - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sep 29, 2023 352 likes •474 views

Proposed Merger of CCGs in County Durham and the Tees Valley Dr Neil OBrien, Chief Clinical Officer Darlington Clinical Commissioning Group Durham Dales, Easington and Sedgefield Clinical Commissioning Group Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees

slide-1
SLIDE 1

County Durham and the Tees Valley Clinical Commissioning Groups Darlington Clinical Commissioning Group Durham Dales, Easington and Sedgefield Clinical Commissioning Group Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees Clinical Commissioning Group North Durham Clinical Commissioning Group South Tees Clinical Commissioning Group

Proposed Merger of CCGs in County Durham and the Tees Valley

Dr Neil O’Brien, Chief Clinical Officer

slide-2
SLIDE 2

County Durham and the Tees Valley Clinical Commissioning Groups

About us

slide-3
SLIDE 3

County Durham and the Tees Valley Clinical Commissioning Groups

Case for change – maximizing our combined potential

  • Natural next steps to our collaboration
  • Supports nascent ICP and ICS
  • Delivery of streamlined clinical pathways and improve

health outcomes

  • Right direction of travel (LTP) – single strategic

commissioning voice

  • Gain further financial and administrative efficiencies
  • Opportunity for sharing best practice and learning –

accelerate improvement

  • Longer term financial and workforce (clinical input)

sustainability

slide-4
SLIDE 4

County Durham and the Tees Valley Clinical Commissioning Groups Darlington Clinical Commissioning Group Durham Dales, Easington and Sedgefield Clinical Commissioning Group Hartlepool and Stockton-on-Tees Clinical Commissioning Group North Durham Clinical Commissioning Group South Tees Clinical Commissioning Group

Benefits - interdependency map

slide-5
SLIDE 5

County Durham and the Tees Valley Clinical Commissioning Groups

Feedback from engagement

Healthwatch engaged for independent feedback Letters to partners and stakeholders Presentations to HWBBs and OSC

Full feedback report to Governing Bodies to support decision making FAQs to be developed for ongoing communication and engagement

Support 2 CCG option as balances ability to achieve efficiencies with keeping a local focus

Members expect opportunities for financial sustainability and security Clarity on how local focus retained

Positive from all partners, stakeholders, staff and public, recognise required efficiencies, want to see resource directed towards patient care

Continued and strengthened engagement, providing feedback on how efficiencies used to support patient care, strong benefits realisation process Continued local focus critical; documentation developed that describes local approach; Constitution and make up of Governing Bodies to reflect local communities Reinforcing local working and local management resource; strengthening clinical leadership through decision making process; developing local engagement approaches

Clear approach to financial delivery within each CCG Benefits of risk share strengthened

slide-6
SLIDE 6

County Durham and the Tees Valley Clinical Commissioning Groups

Challenges and Response

Management and decision making may feel more remote from the membership and local partners Continued engagement with members and partners will be key to ensuring this is mitigated as well as strong engagement with PCNs and LAs progressing integration Ensure needs of diverse populations are addressed Staff uncertainty and disruption Financial challenges in Tees Valley Insufficient management capacity to effect the changes Clinical Leadership may become less aware of very local issues if drawn from a wider membership Representation from the GPs serving the populations across the whole geography will be critical to retaining that local focus Mitigated by good engagement, equity impact assessment, population health management approaches, sound financial planning Continued engagement, limited further structure changes required Better able to manage risks across the wider population, good engagement with ICP partners Agreed project team and plan with additional capacity resourced from effective RCA reductions

slide-7
SLIDE 7

County Durham and the Tees Valley Clinical Commissioning Groups

Maintaining a local focus

  • Continued and developing integration work with local authority partners
  • Continued voice of members throughout our decision making processes

and greater devolvement of decisions to local primary and community teams

  • Greater support for clinical leadership development and particularly PCNs
  • Local, visible and accessible team including:

– Chief Officer – CFO – Locality Commissioning Development and Delivery Director (s) – Locality Commissioning Development and Delivery Director for primary care – Medical Director(s) – Director of Nursing and Quality – Additional Directors for Children and Young Peoples services and for Mental Health and Learning Disability (working at scale)

slide-8
SLIDE 8

County Durham and the Tees Valley Clinical Commissioning Groups

Clinical Leadership

Clinical leadership review findings:

  • All GBs have significant

representation from membership

  • Mixed engagement through

CCOM

  • Difficulty recruiting clinicians to

GBs or taking on leadership roles impacting on governance and succession planning

  • Portfolio Clinicians often poorly

supported; work not always focused on priorities; varying levels of impact despite significant resource Response:

  • Strengthened senior clinical

leadership

  • Portfolio roles rationalised, focused
  • n statutory functions and priority

areas

  • Clear focus in quality, safety and

service redesign

  • Developing relationship with PCN

Clinical Directors to align work and ensure clinical input into key developments and decisions

  • New constitutions to be developed

through Member engagement

slide-9
SLIDE 9

County Durham and the Tees Valley Clinical Commissioning Groups

Progress

  • Significant efficiencies already achieved

(£1.5m with further £0.5m expected)

  • Governing Body meetings ‘in common’

and joint committee for shared decisions (49+ meetings stopped)

  • Shared lay membership in place
  • Senior management team working to

support both potential CCGs

  • Strong project team to deliver
  • Application documentation ready
slide-10
SLIDE 10

County Durham and the Tees Valley Clinical Commissioning Groups

CCG Merger Programme Governance (RACI)

CCG Merger Programme Leads Meeting Combined Management Group Joint Committee Combined Working Group CCG Governing Body CCG Governing Body CCG Governing Body CCG Governing Body CCG Governing Body

CCG Merger Programme Governance RACI N e i l O ' B r i e n

Programme Sponsor / Clinical Lead

N i c B a i l e y / S t e w a r t F i n d l a y

Tees Valley Project Sponsor / Durham Project Sponsor

A l i W i l s

  • n
P r
  • g
r a m m e D i r e c t
  • r

K a r e n H a w k i n s / J

  • s

e p h C h a n d y

Tees Valley Primary Care Lead /Durham Primary Care Lead

J a c q u i K e a n e

Programme Manager / Governance Lead

Richard Henderson/Graeme Niven/Mark Pickering

Financial Accounting / Control

R a c h e l R

  • n

e y

Comms & Engagement Lead

V i c k i S p

  • r

s / J u l i e B a i l e y

HR & Workforce Lead / Organisational Development Lead

J u l i a E l l i

  • t

t

Benefits Realisation Lead

M a r k P i c k e r i n g

Estates / Procurement Lead

M i k e B r i e r l e y

Digital / ICT Lead

Craig Blair & Michael Houghton/Sarah Burns

Tees Valley Commissioning Leads / Duham Commissioning Lead

J e a n G

  • l

i g h t l y / G i l l F i n d l a y

Tees Valley Clinical Quality Lead /Durham Clinical Quality Lead

J u l i a E l l i

  • t

t / M a r i e D a l k i n

PMO CCG Merger Programme STANDING MEMBERS

CCG Merger Programme

Items/Activities in the meeting Agenda setting I I R I C I I I I I I C I C Actions log: Update and manage I I C I I I I I I I I I I R Decisions/Recommendations A R R I I I I I I I I I I I Development of strategies / plans A A R R R R R R R R R R R I Programme Progress I I A C R (monitoring) C C C C C C C C R (monitoring) Programme Risk & Issue Escalations A R R C C C C C C C C C C R STANDING MEMBERS

Key Operational Support Kate Sutherland - Corporate Governance Jill Mathewson - Corporate Governance Nicola Murray - IT Digital Daniel Blagdon - Comms & Engagement Marie Dalkin - PMO

slide-11
SLIDE 11

County Durham and the Tees Valley Clinical Commissioning Groups

2019 2020

Today Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

CCGs Governing Body sign off NHSE Decision expected New constitution submitted to NHSE Staff TUPE

ledger process commences with link to national team.

Finance

Website development, social media etc

Comms & engagement

NHSmail migration, ODS codes etc

Informatics

Application feedback and merger decision.

Corporate Governance NHSE Processes

Staff Consultation and TUPE

HR Merger Application Submission to NHSE

Work with CCOMs re constitution through nov/dec. New constitution agreed Jan and submitted to NHSE for approval.

Staff consultation begins