Sheffield Local Optometric Committee

Sheffield LOC Meeting 12th January 2010

SLOC Minutes of the Meeting
Held on Tuesday 12 January 2010

Present: Phil Banton (PB), Mike Daybell (MD) (Chair), Ian Van Hoof (IVH), Sue Wilford (SW)
Helen Wilkinson (HW), Shirley Blundell (SB), David Inman (DI), Robert Hughes (RH)

Apologies Alex Gage, Gerry Cowley, John Whittle, Helen Bailey

Guest: Richard Oliver (RO), Steven Haigh (SH) – NHS Sheffield
In attendence: Pascale Quercioli

Minutes of the last meeting
The minutes of the last meeting held on 1 December (minor correction on date) and 20 October 09 were accepted – Proposed RH – seconded SW

Matters arising
Ian sent the document re cataract
Gerry mentioned to carry a licence to carry drugs which is not the case – checked from the website by Ian V Hoof.

1. AWP
Lots of exchange LOC to PCT – advice taken by NOC. Awaiting for 18 January to see whether the procurement process has worked or not. Overall feeling from the committee is that this is not the right way to procure the service as it is not an enhanced service.
It is not known if any premises had submitted the form. This does not mean that the LOC does not want the scheme to go ahead it should go a different route. SB has emailed to get clarification on the procurement way for optoms. SH stated that it was wise to wait until the deadline i.e. 18 January. The SLOC position has already been posted on the website and the Committee will provide further advice to registered professional after the deadline. AWP will be a factor the SLOC will have to deal with eventually the point is that no advance worming was given by the PCT. SH stated that AWP is a relatively new concept even for the PCT. Some discussion took place regarding templates documents being drafted and posted on the website. SLOC is not against the AWP as a principle.

2. Draft Document – Optometry Community Provision
SH re-iterated that the document is strictly a draft. The document is issued by NHS Sheffield on Eye care and is designed to do to collect all the services under one document. The 6 principles drafted are only draft, and it is important to discuss them at this meeting. SW stated that the document feels like contractors are being told what to do. RH stated that the PCT used to dealing with GPs which is different from optoms with different requirements. SB stated that it is disappointing to note that no members of the LOC had been consulted to write the document. A detailed discussion took place. DI stated that there is a relationship established between the PCT and the optoms. M D suggested that one should go through the report point by point.
SB stated that it would be useful to know who specifically at the PCT is responsible of what and who is the negotiator (name – position) for all schemes under discussion. Meaningful dialogue between PCT and LOC for enhanced services.
Point 1: agreed, but RIS to copy in GP, not the optom.
Point 2: Rewrite the first sentence – Remove the second sentence – all schemes should be open to any willing practice, and practices should not have to provide all schemes. All schemes open to all optoms practices on an equal basis, regardless of practice/alliance size.
Point 3: It is acceptable and split into 2 principles
Point 4: Linked with point 2 – to be re-written
Point 5: To be split into 2 principles
Point 6: Agreed as fair
Added point: clearer pathway – project management (to be point 1)
IVH page 1 – discussion took place on core as opposed to enhanced and this should be carefully worded and re-written as it is deemed confusing. There should be a principle on coverage of the city. SH to ask Katrina at the PCT to update the document then to email back to MD for circulation to SLOC members for comments.

3. GRR
Should follow the NICE guidelines. Discussion took place on whether Perkins or Goldman equipment can be used – either can be. It is agreed that the scheme is a core competency not enhanced service. There have been 2 meetings defining the patients experience through the hospital so now looking at scheme with shared care. More discussion will take place on shared care. As referrals will go through the RIS the GRR service should improve and less referrals should be generated. STH’ s point of view is that they prefer to see lots of data analysis but the feeling is that STH is more in favour of the service being delivered in the community than they previously have been. However nothing has been decided but it is significant because of the numbers of patients potentially involved. This question of interest in glaucoma shared care could be asked to optom colleagues when DI carries on the practice visits.

MD thanked PB for the good work on this and some optoms will be doing the triaging, 10 of them will do a rota of a one all day 2 week cycle basis and those involved have now got an active NHS email addresses. There is a meeting on 13 January on RIS about the children’ schemes although it might be too early as the scheme has yet to take off. The scheme will go live on 18th Jan. A letter is going out to everybody with a second letter going out to the triage optoms.


Any Other Business

Diabetic Eye Screening: A meeting took place that day with John Soady. R H summarised the outcome. They were informed that screening would be pulled away from community optoms and placed in approx 8 key community sites (GP practices etc), with NVQ qualified screener/graders in situ. Of the 21 cameras previously purchased and in use by optom screeners currently 2 cameras are being placed in the Hospitals, the others are to be sold off by the PCT to the Hallamshire, for no money. Some of these will be used at the fixed PCT owned sites previously mentioned, 1 or 2 may be mobile, and the rest will be surplus to requirements. It will be up to the Hallamshire as new owners to decide what to do with them. They are assuming that optoms are going to ask too much to grade, however no figure is available at present to say how much the PCT will be paying RHH per screening. It might be that this amount could be matched by optoms, and it is not the PCT’s place to assume otherwise. This is planned to kick off in July 2010. There is still a slight chance the optoms might be involved but it is felt the decision is 99% made. LOC is to wait for the figures requested to come back. SW commented that as this is a PCT led initiative it is disappointing to hear the news without any prior consultations with professional optoms who have been part of the discussions. SH suggested that MD writes to Jeremy Wright, Director of PH.

Date for next meeting: Monday 22 February 2010
Beauchief Hotel – Abbeydale Road
Meeting closed at 09.45

« Back to the archives

Next Meeting:

Holiday Inn hotel,
Blonk St
S1 2AB

at 7.30 pm Tues 1st Aug

Mailing List

Join our mailing list