Attendees and apologies
- Mr Gavin Gray (Chair)
- Ms Hannah Axon
- Ms Kate Bell
- Mr Jim Cannon
- Mr Gordon Johnston
- Dr Jamie Kirkland
- Ms Michele Mason
- Mr James Meade
- Professor Lindsay Thomson
- Ms Linda Walker
- Dr Ms Julie Lusk
- Ms Diane Buchanan
- Ms Jenny Coltman
- My Danielle McLeary
- Ms Kirsten O'Neill
- Ms Maggie Young
- Dr Ian Dewar
- Dr Gary Jenkins
- Professor Angela Wallace
Items and actions
Welcome and introductions and agreement of AOB
The Chair welcomed everyone and recorded apologies.
The Chair advised that Ms Lorraine Keith has now left Support in Mind Scotland and will no longer be involved in the Short Life Working Group (SLWG). Ms Michele Mason, Area Manager, Edinburgh, Support in Mind Scotland will replace Lorraine going forward and was welcomed to the group.
Agreement of minute from previous meeting and matters arising
Members were content with the minutes from the previous meeting and had no comments.
Jenny Coltman shared the actions from the previous minute and highlighted that the SG Project Team have been putting together a shared Microsoft Teams channel following the previous meeting. Jenny reminded all members to give permission to the Project team if they have not already done so in order for them to be added to the channel.
Note: there appears to be an issue in enabling guests to access the MS Teams Channel, which the SG Project Team are looking into.
The Chair advised that a following discussion with SLWG members that a paper setting out some clarity around the scope of the task of the group this was issued prior to today’s meeting. The Chair emphasised that given the wide range of interests in forensic Mental Health, that the work of the group cannot be restricted to health There were no comments made by group members on the paper.
Action: SLWG members to give the SG Project Team permission to add them to the existing MS Teams channel if they have not already done so.
Approaches to planning, collaboration, governance and accountability
Diane Buchanan provided an update on the long list of options, highlighting that she and Maggie Young have been meeting with members of the SLWG to talk about further development of the option descriptors. The work with the Option Teams has proven valuable and provided honest feedback. There have been some successful group discussions. Diane noted that this still feels like a developing piece of work which may take more time than was initially anticipated. A deadline of 29 March was proposed. Diane and Maggie will continue to work with members of the SLWG to finalise the descriptors. The option leads were asked to provide a further update.
Lindsay Thompson brought the group to the attention to the Option 7 which she has been responsible for. She welcomed any advice from group members regarding this option and asked for any recommendations of other documents that may highlight the pros and cons of such an approach. Linda Walker advised that the decision making and operation running/ funding of perinatal services still sits with regional areas, however is unsure if it is the same as the model that’s being proposed in this instance.
The Chair opened this up for any additional thoughts. Kate Bell expressed a view that commissioning in Scotland in terms of the Public Bodies Act 2014 delegated responsibilities to Integration Joint Boards (IJBs) to work with local authorities and health boards. There is a need for further conversations regarding this. It may be wise to co-operate with someone from the SG Integration Unit on this to inform this process.
Jim Cannon suggested that Lindsay could contact Susie Buchanan (director of National Services Division). They are currently exploring how strategic networks may evolve and be put in place for different scenarios eg. Scottish Cancer Network. This has more of a link to the policy and commissioning of services but may be helpful for Option 7.
The Chair noted that it would be good to know which options are realistically not likely to work so that members know which options to put additional effort into.
Kate Bell advised that the group needed to agree if the ‘status quo’ was being developed as a ‘do minimum’ to give clarity to this as a separate option. This would enable, for example, six potentially viable options. The group were reminded that the status quo is required as a baseline option for comparison.
Group members accepted that the status quo needs to be included in the option appraisal but there were some concerns about minimum change and Lindsay Thompson noted that she would like to explore this more as she does not want the group to come away without something that resolves the issues within the existing network. The current system works, however, the outcomes from the recommendations should make it better and ensure consistency across the country
The Chair noted that it is important to get papers out to the stakeholders in plenty time before the workshop in order for them to be able to consider all of these points and is content to continue closed discussions to get a refined options list. This opened discussion on the long list and members queried whether it is possible to simplify and shrink the list down to 4 option for the upcoming workshops. Other members highlighted that for stakeholders to be invested in the process and be receptive to the short list, they need to be able to see and understand everything that has been explored so far during the options process.
Planning – developing quality dimensions/criteria
Kate Bell provided an update on the Quality Dimension for FMHSs and the ranking and weighting of these. Group members were asked their thoughts on the dimensions and what criteria they think is most important to support the ranking and weighting process.
Group members discussed their different views, with several members believing that person-centred is the most important option and others highlighting that safety would be theirs. Overall, it was agreed that all quality criteria were interdependent and all effect each other, however, SLWG were asked to compare these quality dimensions/criteria to each other, provide feedback on a rank and weight for each as advised in order for the importance.
A link to the Jam Board was put into the Teams chat for members to send their thoughts on the different options.
Action: each SLWG member to complete the ranking and weighting and send to SG Project Team
Action: SLWG members to post comments on Jam Board.
AOB and date of next meeting
The SG Project Team would issue a meeting request for the next meeting of the SLWG, now confirmed as 10 May 2022 at 13:00 hours via MS Teams.
Dates of next meetings and workshops
Second workshop - Tuesday 12 April 10.00 - 16.00.
Third workshop - Thursday 26 May 10.00 - 16.00.
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback