Your Councillors

Discussion topic



·         Signposting

·         Better understanding of partnerships and different perspectives

·         A useful forum to share information, develop partnerships and focus on the determinants of health and wellbeing

·         The geography works quite well

·         The West Kent Integration Board matches the WHWBB with the exception of Swanley

·          (slowly) building relationships between commissioners

·         WKHWBB may have given credibility to work streams that districts/ borough were already working towards

·         Gained understanding of JSNA, HWBB agenda, each other

·         Establishing the relationship

·         Brought a focus on priority areas

·         Task and finish groups and development of strategies

·         Closer working with the LA – sharing office etc

·         Communication improved

·         Plans now more reflective of partnerships

·         Clinical microsystems (quality improvement in primary care) more joined up

·         Self-care group – effective

·         Helicopter view informing delivery

·         Maidstone – housing team now attend delayed discharge meetings

·         Shared understanding of challenges

·         Improved strategic relationships

·         Whole system view

·         Comprehensive presentations

·         Spring board to delivery in other form e.g. planning, strategic estates, mapping tools



·         Practical progress slow

·         Lack of awareness of the ‘positives’ outcomes that the Board has initiated

·         STP experience has led to a set of views that contribution of the districts and borough NOT valued and that they do not have a role to play

·         Successes don’t always come back to Board

·         Relationship with Kent HWBB?  Formal sub committee

·         Lack of guidance

·         Inconsistency between HWBB

·         Will partners cede authority to the Board?

·         Concerns about economies of scale and accountability and performance management

·         Is the future of LHWBBS as commissioning organisations? Particularly in light of the WKCCG likely to be incorporated into a Kent CCG

·         Membership – are the right people there? Should providers be represented?

·         Willingness to co commission

·         Disconnect between what people would like and expect and what they’re prepared to do

·         Focus is too wide – changing behaviours or changing environment

·         Austerity leads to risk aversion in sovereign organisations – is the WKHWBB the right vehicle to reduce perceived risk

·         Geography?

·         Board members – struggle to understand what is the difference that participation makes

·         Not enough feedback about any successes

·         Shift thinking about the opportunities that the devolution deal can help deliver

·         Frustrations about the fact that the devolution deal has not been a central focus of the Boards deliberation

·         Lack of engagement from social care – should be involved but where are they?

·         WKHWBB ambitions to tackle the sorts of issues we are trying to deliver – can’t be resolved without KCC social care

·         The board needs to challenge other members – all need to be accountable

·         Board members need to be prepared to challenge their own organisations and existing thinking about current provision of services

·         Need to challenge commissioning culture

·         Can ‘trusted partners’ be considered to provide services?

·         Are existing commissioning cycles a barrier to innovation (health and social care)

·         Misguided objectives and complexity

·         Need for energy, passion, higher level champions

·         Issue of power – can develop strategy but capacity to influence delivery?

·         How can we be enablers?

·         How can we hold each other to account?

·         Should we be asking for clearer sign up?

·         Are individuals as committed as they should be?

·         Does it need to be all about delivery?

·         Do we follow the evidence?

·         Are we good enough as prioritisation?

·         What happens between meetings?

·         Who’s responsible for taking it forward?

·         Lack of funds

·         Clusters – delivery points?

·         Districts – working differently

Future roles and responsibilities

·         Influence the STP and its delivery

·         Needs to avoid duplication and needs to add value

·         Help each of the respective organisations understand respective levels of clustering

·         WHWBB should focus on identifying needs and how to address them at a strategic level

·         Capturing the overview and the work of the other boards and plans

·         Having boards own basket of indicators for West Kent and a way to measure/ share them

·         Be a forum for sharing best practice and innovation

·         Scan the horizon for the future challenges and start the conversations – how will this affect us jointly and separately

·         Be a sounding board on ideas and challenges

·         Do we want to be a delivery group?

·         Responsibility and power should be agreed by the Kent Board

·         Necessary focus on wellbeing

·         Mechanisms for localism and sharing – inc teams, IT, premises

·         Opportunities of clustering

·         ‘big enough to cope, small enough to care’

·         Feedback

·         Design and implementation of local care arrangements

·         Social prescribing

·         One public estate

·         Influence cluster leads to influence self-care agenda

·         Work force planning

·         IT, digital connectivity

·         Do we need to exist? In this form?

·         Adult social care – join up is happening on the ground but not at a strategic level.

·         This makes no sense to the man in the street – do we need an engagement plan? To work with the voluntary sector? Use networks more? Hold listening events?

·         STP view of prevention is medicalised – needs to look at root causes.

·         Support system permissions – risk averse behaviours, we need to get culture change and support

·         Potential of Right Care methodology

·         Co commissioning of public health – needs to be embedded

·         Kent and Medway – STP join p? HWB Join up?

Short term priorities

·         Given the organisational flux, focus on a deliverable plan which can be delivered over the next 6-12 months.

·         Tighten up the T&F groups – objective is inequalities, need milestones, report back regularly

·         Pick one priority – e.g. MECC, obesity, alcohol

·         Look at critical issues – obesity, alcohol etc review what has been done

·         Task and finish – what has followed from that work?

·         Look at engagement of social care

·         Sign up to a shared priority?

·         Be a partnership rather than a board?

·         Hold meetings in the same, accessible place

·         Influence the local plan

·         Consider the geography?

·         Hear about the local delivery of the STP (local element)

·         Use WKHWBB to unblock issues e.g. identifying outcomes, what can we do to help

·         Continue communication and improve signposting

·         What other representatives/ links would enhance the WKHWBB? – Community Safety Partnerships? Local Children’s Partnerships?

·         What are our respective agencies challenges? How do we help each other?

·         Role of interpretation and translation

·         Horizon scanning – what are the big things coming?

·         Task and finish groups don’t finish so short term need to deliver at least one measurable output

·         Need to decide between focus on internal understanding and things that directly affect residents

·         Develop a single view of the world

·         Focus on specific geographies with defined measures of performance, clear responsibilities of each org.

·         Board needs to demonstrate it is competent.

·         What does a reboot mean? For organisations and for residents in the context of the changing landscape

·         The local board is not mini KHWBB – should it be a delivery arm of KHWBB?

·         STP – making sure we all understand the strategy and oversight of the local delivery

Longer term evolution

·         Difficult to predict given various ‘clustering’

·         We have to be flexible

·         Ensure we keep a handle on the local/delivery

·         Speak to local people – are we meeting their needs?

·         Bring together prevention and primary acre



Workshop Feedback



1 - disagree




5 - agree

The workshop objectives were clearly communicated






The content of the workshop supported the objectives






The break out sessions worked well






The workshop objectives were met








What would you have liked more time on?

·         May have been good to rotate

·         Cluster groups

·         Clearer definition of health inequalities and how they can be impacted

What would you suggest to improve the workshop?

·         Attendance from social care

·         It was excellent – slides difficult to see though.

Additional comments

·         Really useful thank you

·         Helpful and interesting, thanks

·         Balance of the topics was broadly right, my only comment is that we would clearly have benefitted from scene setting/ shared understanding of the changing landscape at the start

·         I thought it was a good experience. We all had some really good ideas – the challenge now is to capture all of those ideas and be sure to implement them in a structured and disciplined way. Really good session, good facilitation