(a) Motion received from Cllr K Ball:
“West Devon Borough Council would like to raise its concerns about the narrow consultation options in respect of the potential loss of 16 beds at Okehampton Hospital, where all of the options are to the far east of the County. West Devon Borough Council therefore asks that NEW Devon CCG give consideration to including the retention of the 16 beds in Okehampton Hospital as an additional option during the consultation exercise.”
Minutes:
CM 37
It was moved by Cllr M Davies and seconded by Cllr A F Leech that:
‘“West Devon Borough Council would like to raise its concerns about the narrow consultation options in respect of the potential loss of 16 beds at Okehampton Hospital, where all of the options are to the far east of the County. West Devon Borough Council therefore asks that NEW Devon CCG includes the retention of the 16 beds in Okehampton Hospital as an additional option during the consultation exercise.”
In introducing the motion, the proposer highlighted that:
- the NEW Devon CCG had decided at a meeting on 28 September 2016 to consult on proposed changes to the way elderly and frail people were cared for in their locality;
- the consultation document did not include the option to retain the 16 beds in Okehampton Hospital. As a consequence, the residents of Okehampton and its neighbouring parishes were being excluded and sold short;
- there was an acceptance of the need for budget cuts, but not before a solution had been identified;
- he had set up a Facebook page entitled: ‘Save Our Beds – Okehampton Hospital’;
- the CCG representatives that had attended the recent Overview and Scrutiny (External) Committee meeting had confirmed that there had been no West Devon Borough residents involved in the process of drawing up the proposals for consultation;
- in the event of his motion being approved, he would request that copies of the decision be sent to the local MPs; the Health and Wellbeing Board and the Secretary of State for Health.
In the ensuing debate, reference was made to:
(a) the views of the seconder. The seconder commented that the whole process that had been followed to date was a cause for concern. As a consequence, he felt that there was a need to test the criteria that had been followed by the CCG to ensure that it was both correct and fair. In addition, the seconder was of the view that the Okehampton area was also being penalised for being recently moved into the NEW Devon CCG area;
(b) the impact on the wider area. In calling for a concerted effort from the Council, Okehampton Town Council and the neighbouring parish councils, a Member stressed that this issue should not be considered as solely a matter for the town of Okehampton. For clarity, a Member confirmed that the neighbouring parish councils had already been contacted on this matter by the Mayor of Okehampton Town Council;
(c) the growth earmarked for the Okehampton area. Some Members expressed their surprise at the apparent lack of consideration by the CCG of the extensive growth that was earmarked for the Okehampton area. Indeed, a Member made the point that there was the actual potential to aid the viability of the hospital by increasing the number of beds from 16 to 24;
(d) the ‘care in the community’ agenda. In expressing the view that the pendulum had swung too far towards care being managed in the community, some Members stated that it was not always possible to move patients straight from acute care beds back into their homes;
(e) the travel distance from Okehampton to Exeter. In outlining the apparent inconsistencies in the process, some Members advised that it was quicker to travel from Tiverton to Exeter than it was from Okehampton to Exeter, yet the consultation exercise emphasised the importance of maintaining the number of beds at Tiverton Hospital;
(f) the future of the relatively new building. If the 16 beds were lost from the hospital, some Members highlighted the other services that were located in the building and questioned the consequent uncertainties that would result;
(g) the lack of consultation. A number of Members stated their disappointment at the lack of consultation and engagement that had been instigated between the CCG and local Members.
When put to the vote, the motion was unanimously declared CARRIED.