Meeting documents

Presenter:

Dr Jane O’Grady, Director of Public Health

Dr O’Grady confirmed that the dashboard is available on the web and explained that it had been developed to show how the health and wellbeing of the population was progressing.  The indicators were arranged under the priorities expressed in the Health and Wellbeing Strategy.  Partners have had the opportunity to feedback on which indicators were required.  The indicators were benchmarked against national and CIPFA benchmarks and some were a year behind, particularly the national benchmarks.  The spark chart shows how the data is trending. 

The following points were raised by the Board.

• In response to a query about different time periods, Dr O’Grady responded that the time periods would be shown in the first report with more detail.  The dashboard was a visual guide and charts would be produced with vertical axis to show the drop.  An annual report would be produced containing all the data.  The Chairman stressed the importance of understanding the data in order to gauge the significance of the trends.
• Ms Baker asked if there were any other cross-cutting topics which need to be measured due to the development of the Accountable Care System e.g. a measure of public engagement.  Dr O’Grady said that it would be a difficult indicator to benchmark but the Board could collectively say how they want to measure engagement.
• It was suggested that a covering paper be provided with the annual dashboard report showing what needed to be focussed on.
• There were a number of dashboards in development, for example the Accountable Care System, and it would be important to co-ordinate for forward plans.
• Should there be a weighting factor?  Should a priority be focussed on from each area in the covering paper? 
• There was a danger of not seeing what lies behind the green indicators.  Was the Board planning a cyclical review of individual metrics as part of the covering paper?  Dr O’Grady suggested having themed priorities as each organisation had different priorities.
• It was noted that "blue" is not on the key.  Dr O’Grady explained that blue was significantly better than the national average but a judgement had not been applied. 
• It was suggested that the arrows used on the Cabinet papers would be a useful addition.
• It was noted that the definition of "green" on the last page needed correcting.
• In response to a query about why the chlamydia was a red indicator even though the national average was 1.8% and the Buckinghamshire rate was1.3%, Dr O’Grady said that it was in the dashboard for transparency and was a Public Health England defined red.  It had been decided that if a high level had not been detected it could mean that they had been missed.
• Ms Rhodes-White said that the dashboard would be scrutinised by the refreshed Children and Young People’s Partnership and that they would raise any areas of concern with the Board.

RESOLVED: The Board AGREED the recommendations as set out in the report.  

It was noted it would be necessary to keep the actions of the planning group under review.  The Chairman agreed to the suggestion that partnership Boards be given ownership of the priority sections.

It was agreed that the definition of "green" be corrected to say "significantly better" and the definition of red should say "significantly worse".  The definition of "blue" to be added to the key.

Action: Ms McDonald