Agenda item

The Panel are asked to consider the attached consultation briefing and proposal from the Coroner to:

1)  Conduct all Coroner post mortems at Flax Bourton i.e. to cease the current practice of some Coroner post mortems taking place in the Royal United Hospital in Bath (RUH).

2)  No longer pay for deceased patient storage at the RUH for ‘Coroner Form A’ cases (i.e. HM Coroner, after investigation, decides the patient died a natural death and informs the Registrars to proceed with death registration).

These proposals are in line with Coroner provision across the rest of the ex-Avon area.

The Chairman informed the meeting that the Panel are asked to consider the consultation briefing and proposal from the Coroner to:

 1)  Conduct all Coroner post mortems at Flax Bourton i.e. to cease the current practice of some Coroner post mortems taking place in the Royal United Hospital in Bath (RUH).

2)  No longer pay for deceased patient storage at the RUH for ‘Coroner Form A’ cases (i.e. HM Coroner, after investigation, decides the patient died a natural death and informs the Registrars to proceed with death registration).

These proposals are in line with Coroner provision across the rest of the ex-Avon area.

The Chairman welcomed the representatives from Bristol City Council, Zillah Morris and John Pitchers, and also the RUH representatives - Howard Jones, Dr Andrew Taylor and Dr Chris Meehan.

The Panel asked the following questions:

The Panel asked if the Equality Impact Assessment was conducted considering that the briefing listed lot of positives and hardly any negative impact.

Howard Jones commented that significant negatives will be for families in BANES and Wiltshire.  The proposal will potentially undermine pathology services in the RUH and also the training provided within the RUH.  The RUH conducted 400 post mortems per year and the proposed change will have major impact on families of deceased.  Chief Executive from the RUH will be asking Wiltshire Scrutiny to also look at this issue even though Wiltshire was not included in the consultation. 

Samantha Jones (Corporate Policy Manager for Equalities) informed the Panel that the Equality Impact Assessment Form from the Bristol City Council is in Appendix B of the report (page 102 and 8).  However, the form only listed positive effects of the proposal but not the negative impact.

Zillah Morris said that Bristol City Council had been asked to review this matter.  The review highlighted potential duplication in service provided by Flax Bourton and the RUH.  Zillah Morris reminded the Panel that Bristol City Council is the lead partner on Coronary provision and Bristol City Council believed that proposal would have positive impact on ex-Avon area.  Consultation process that took place was under Bristol City Council guidelines and as such it did not require to flag negative effects.  Zillah Morris gave more background on the proposal (as per the briefing included in the agenda) and added that she understood concerns about the transport issues between the RUH and Flax Bourton.  However, the proposal would have no impact on families – the viewing of the deceased would still be held in the hospital.  There is also nothing to stop clinical professionals to come to Flax Bourton when they need to and the training has been quite successful in Flax Bourton.  There would be no additional costs for any of four local authorities that fund Flax Bourton.

The Panel asked if the proposal is suggesting that the RUH facilities should continue to exist in case of the requirement for additional storage.

Zillah Morris replied that she would not know what the specific arrangements would be.

Dr Andrew Taylor said that the RUH would still be required but they would not be able to provide additional storage place if the proposal go ahead.  If all Coroner post mortems take place in Flax Bourton then the RUHJ would have to shut their facilities.

Members of the Panel made the following points:

Councillor Martin Veal said that he understood that Bristol City Council had to make some cuts but still he could not understand that the lack of the Equality Impact Assessment.  He suggested that the Panel should reject the report presented at the meeting and ask for a new report which will encompass full Equality Impact Assessment that gives full consideration of the RUH full catchment area.

Councillor Gerry Curran says that we have the facility in the RUH that also serves Wiltshire area and with 400 post mortems per year it is fairly busy facility.  Councillor Curran said that he couldn’t see great savings in ceasing the current practice.

Councillor Brian Simmons said that the proposal mentioned only ex-Avon areas and not Wiltshire and Mendip areas.  For that reason the Panel should reject the report.

Councillor Eleanor Jackson agreed with the other Panel Members and said that this report is not legally justifiable.  Councillor Jackson said that the report mentioned the distance between Bath and Flax Bourton but not the distance from other places within BANES area, in particular South and South-West North East Somerset.  There was no consideration of ethnic minorities and no awareness that people from other cultures have issues on viewing the deceased.  This proposal is against the Localism agenda.  Councillor Jackson agreed that the Panel should reject the report because of the lack of the right Equality Impact Assessment.

Councillor Bryan Organ said that BANES PCT is in the clustering process with Wiltshire PCT and that the proposal should consider consultation with Wiltshire.  Councillor Organ asked why stopping something that works well.  Councillor Organ also agreed to reject the report.

The Chairman thanked everyone who participated in this debate.

The Wellbeing Policy Development and Scrutiny Panel made the following RESOLUTION:

1.  The Panel REJECTED the report presented at the meeting (Final Consultation Briefing Flax Burton Public Mort)

2.  The Panel ASKED for a new report which will encompass full Equality Impact Assessment that gives full consideration of the RUH full catchment area

3.  The Panel ASKED for longer consultation process.  The Panel did not welcome that the consultation process started just before the Christmas period; and

4.  The Panel expressed their concern about the sustainability of the RUH facilities should the Coronary provision be transferred to Flax Burton Public Mortuary.

Members of the Panel suggested that the new report should be compiled in consultation with the RUH Bath.

The Panel also requested that the outcome of the meeting on 8th February be communicated with them.