Minutes of the Twenty First Meeting of the Board of NHS Leicester ...

Paper ANHS Leicester City Board Meeting12 May 2011apportionment and Ms Roseblade confirmed that the split is infact 37% for NHSLC and 63% for NSLCR.Mr Suleman asked how the increased funding to the Drug PoolTreatment allocation would be monitored. Ms Rosebladeassured that the funding has a whole set of requirementsattached to it and there is a robust structure of monitoring.Mr Sanders advised that the running costs aligned to the GPconsortium would soon need to be reported on. A piece of workfor the Executive Team is to understand the functions that canbe directly aligned to the Consortium.Dr Freeman made the Board aware of the demand managementchallenge coming from the right care initiative and clinicalvariation which is a substantial and significant challenge with ahigh risk of non-achievement. Everything will be done tosuccessfully deliver but it will be challenging.Mr Wilson noted in Appendix 2 the optimum provision is toprovide 15% to 20% of dependent alcohol users access toalcohol treatment and intervention services. However the Citycommitment appeared to be lower and he asked if funding fromelsewhere could be channelled such as Chlamydia funds. MsWatson advised that the tender to the City Council is to provide18% of dependents with access to alcohol treatment services.Alcohol is a big issue for the city and intervention needs to behappening earlier. Ms Watson was happy to re-look at otherareas of funding but Ms Griffiths warned that care must be takenthat Leicester City does not become an outlier for Chlamydiatesting and treatment.Mr Finan asked about the planned capital expenditure of £13m.Mr Sanders assured that business cases have or will bedeveloped for all of the schemes. The Belgrave and DeMontfortschemes were approved some time ago by the Board and MrSanders undertook to send Mr Finan some information as itpredated Mr Finan joining the Board. Capital will only be spentwhere required and in 2010/11 capital was returned as capitalworks were secured for a lower than expected cost.Ms Clarke noted that some of the childhood obesityprogrammes are being independently evaluated and asked if MsWatson had a view on the future of those services. Ms Watsonfelt that there would not be a significant change of direction butwould seek to include multi-faceted aspects such as the widerfamily members and identify elements that have worked best toembed in future service specifications. This will be helpful whenre-commissioning the service.3