Agenda and minutes

Health and Wellbeing Board - Thursday 15 October 2020 6.00 pm

Venue: Microsoft Teams

Contact: Adrian Bentley, Democratic Services Officer,  020 7926 7162, Email:

No. Item





    The Chair welcomed attendees and the Board Members introduced themselves. This was the second virtual meeting of the Health and Wellbeing Board.



Declarations of Interest

    • View the background to item 2.

    Under section 4 of the governance arrangements for the Health & Wellbeing Board, Board members are bound by the Members’ Code of Conduct as set out in the Council’s Constitution (Part 4 Section 1).  Where any Board member has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in any matter to be considered at a Board meeting they must withdraw from the meeting room during the whole of the consideration of that matter and must not participate in any vote on that matter unless a dispensation has been obtained from the Monitoring Officer.



    There were none.


Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 194 KB

    • View the background to item 3.

    To approve the minutes of the previous meeting.





    That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 2 July 2020 be approved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings.



Public Notice Questions


    There were two Public Notice Questions. The Chair asked Wendy Horler from Lambeth Keep Our NHS Public to address the first of these to the Board.

    Wendy Horler was invited to ask her question:

    “How well did the central track and trace system work for Lambeth residents at the beginning of September, when schools went back?  Would Lambeth consider following Greenwich Council’s example and pass a motion taking full control of local test, track and tracing?”

    The Chair asked Ruth Hutt, Director of Public Health, to respond to this question.

    Ruth said that in September testing capacity for London had dropped due to it being diverted to the North East of England to deal with their rise in cases. Lambeth testing at this time had stood up to the pressures and options had been put in place to allow testing at home.

    There had been national issues with contract tracing with some parts of the country only managing to contact 50% of those that should have been. The figure in Lambeth was significantly higher than this with 85%-87% being successfully contacted.

    The Chair invited Susan Sidgwick from Lambeth Keep Our NHS Public to ask her question. Susan provided her question, which was amended from the version submitted as some the issues in that question had been answered in the previous response. 

    Susan noted that the plan put forward by central government seemed to be that the Test and Trace system would be run nationally but details of those that were proving hard to reach would be passed to local public health to follow up. Once contact had been made this would be sent back to the central system. Weekly figures on performance showed that the national system was not getting any better with only 58% of people being reached. It was asked to what extent local systems could pursue contacts.  It was noted that Cllr Hopkins had circulated a letter to support a circuit breaker lockdown, stating that London Boroughs should be given the funding and responsibility to take on test and trace.

    It was asked what was happening with Professor Fenton’s discussions with London DPHs about locally supported contact tracing to help plug some of the gaps in NHS Test and Trace and if there were any plans either at borough, ICS or London region level for Public Health and its partners to take over general community testing and tracing from the national system?”

    Ruth again was asked to respond.

    Ruth noted that the position at the moment was that Lambeth would contact the person that the national test and trace had not been able to reach but they would not then contact the people that they had interacted with. The Public Health resource locally was limited and this work had a large resource requirement and people had to be trained to do this work. Initially it would be very dependent on the Public Health Team. It was Ruth’s view that the way to manage this for Lambeth was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.


Loneliness and Social Isolation


    AnaCatarina PinhoGomes, Public Health Specialty Trainee, gave an overview of some of the key themes for this item, noting that:

    • Loneliness was a subjective feeling and was different from being alone.
    • Social isolation was an objective physical separation from other people.
    • Lack of family, friends and social networks were the main causes of loneliness and social isolation.
    • Loneliness had a significant cost to the community.
    • Tackling loneliness and social isolation would have a large return on investment.
    • 5% of people in GB (2.6 million adults) reported that they felt lonely often or always between April and September 2020, about the same proportion as pre-lockdown.
    • 41% of UK adults report feeling lonelier since lockdown.
    • 37% of UK adults agree their neighbours are like strangers to them.
    • 33% of UK adults haven’t had a meaningful conversation with someone within the last week.
    • 38% of Black, Asian & minority ethnic adults in the UK agree they often feel alone, and they have no one to turn to in comparison to 31% of UK adults as a whole.
    • One third of UK adults are concerned that their loneliness will get worse.
    • The loneliest people feel less able to cope with and recover from the pandemic.


    The Chair thanked AnaCatarina for her presentation.

    Representatives of the community had been invited to give their thoughts on loneliness and isolation and they were called to address the Board.

    Sarah Ojar  parent

    Ms Ojar was a parent of a local child with Downs syndrome. The pandemic had been very challenging.  Ms Ojar said that the report she had received from Lambeth had been very helpful and that the Children’s Centres had been a major part of that support. Ms Ojar said that the Children’s Centres was a great service.

    SitiJuma – parent

    Ms Juma was the parent of an autistic Child. She said that it had been a struggle since the schools closed but the Children’s Centres had done a wonderful job

    Richard Kegan-Bull – Learning Disability Network

    Richard Kegan-Bull from the Learning Disability Network said that it had been a challenging time for people’s mental health and described the experience as ‘like going into a tunnel’.

    Dr Vikesh Sharma - (GP Grantham Practice)

    Dr Sharma was the GP of Grantham Practice. He noted that loneliness had been seen across a spectrum of cases and had affected people in different ways. GPs were not always the best people to deal with this and efforts were taking place to elevate community organisations so that people would know they were available to help them.

    Samantha Crawley - (Head of Business Improvement Excel care)

    Samantha said that loneliness in care homes had always had to be managed. This had to be stepped up due to Covid. She said that actions taken to deal with loneliness and isolation had included:

    ·                     Working with London museums to create virtual tours.

    ·                     Virtual entertainment

    ·                     Competitions

    ·                     Virtual meetings with family members

    A virtual open day had been planned for the following week.

    The Chair thanked Sarah  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.


COVID-19 : Current situation and Lambeth Outbreak Prevention and Control Plan


    Ruth Hutt presented this item.

    The Outbreak Control Plan that was published on 30 June 2020 had been updated. A further update would be made to the document the following day and a link to this would be sent to The Board when this had been done.

    The Dashboard was updated every three days. London was getting close to 100 cases for every 100,000. This rate was accelerating. Deaths were also starting to rise, although this was a lagging indicator.

    Cases that had begun in the younger population had now started to be passed to those that were older. The density of London meant that spread was likely to take place quickly. The R rate was 1.2-1.4.

    All parts of the country were seeing an escalation of cases.

    The Outbreak Control Plan provided a framework for how to respond. Support was in place if individuals needed to self-isolate. There had been plenty of engagement with residents and capacity to counter false information was in place. A lot of information had been distributed to residents.


    The refresh of the Outbreak Control Plan was noted.



NHS system preparedness for COVID-19 2nd wave


    Andrew Eyres presented an update on system preparedness.

    Lambeth were not only planning for the second wave but looking at how services were managed over winter and how care was sustained in non-Covid areas. This was a big task. Brexit could also have major impact.

    There was increased understanding of Covid developed from the first wave. Those who were most vulnerable had been identified and there was increased knowledge of disease progression and treatment.

    The Guillotine fell and the Chair asked the Board for approval to extend the meeting by 10 minutes.


    The board agreed that the meeting be extended for 10 further minutes.

    Andrew continued:

    There was an extended flu vaccination program in place.

    Virtual systems had helped services to continue although it was recognized that this was not suitable for everyone. Ways of separating those with Covid had allowed a wider range of services to remain open. Demand and capacity could be flexed to allow other services to run.

    Infrastructure for PPE, staff risk assessment, clinical advice and guidance, enhanced discharge processes, staff and patient antigen testing, staffing rotas and planning and system working and oversight arrangement were now in place

    The last Lambeth Together Board had signed of the Recovery Plan, which laid out how services go forward din the following 18 months.

    Andrew asked Sarah Austin, Director Integrated Care GSTT, to give reflections from her work. Sarah said that they were trying to keep hospitals safe and were separating those with Covid from others. Staff were being vaccinated for flu and supported. The 111 service also provided a way for people to get support without having to come into hospital.

    Adrian McLaughlin added that general practice had never closed but was working differently. That message had not been communicated as well as it could have. The unmet need over that time was being prioritised. There was a new workforce in general practice with the development of the primary care network additional roles and social prescribing link workers, which had enabled GPs to work very differently.

    There was an important story to tell in the work with homeless people over this period and this needed to continue.



Lambeth Children's Partnership Board update pdf icon PDF 284 KB


    Due to the time constraints this item was taken as read. The Board was asked to send any questions or comments to Merlin Joseph.


    The report was noted.