Agenda item

Jo Reeves gave a presentation on the vaccination programme. Key points included:

·         The data related to the period up to 9 April 2021.

·         Data was not available for three practices in Hungerford, Lambourn and Mortimer due to the system that they were using, but 90% of residents were covered by the data.

·         58,190 patients (52%) had received one dose, 6.947 (6%) had received their second dose and 48,683 (42%) of those aged 18+ were still to receive their first dose.

·         All patients aged 50+ and all clinically vulnerable patients aged 16+ had been offered a first dose

·         Over 13,000 doses had been delivered in Pangbourne and over 33,000 in Newbury, with both sites now delivering second doses.

·         Take up was higher across all age groups in West Berkshire than the average across the BOB Integrated Care System area and was far higher than for the annual flu vaccination programme.

·         Some variances persisted across ethnic groups, but the situation was much improved compared to a month earlier, particularly amongst the Pakistani community.

·         Causes for these variances included spread of misinformation, language barriers and access issues.

·         Some ethnic groups only had small numbers of older people and so younger cohorts were showing more strongly in the figures.

·         Work was ongoing to understand why some people were declining the vaccine.

·         Ambassadors were working with ‘seldom-heard’ communities.

·         Pop-up clinics were being used to improve access and convenience, including at the West Berkshire Muslim Centre.

·         Take-up amongst at-risk and inclusion groups was high, although there was a reduced take-up amongst younger people.

·         There was a marginally reduced take-up rate amongst young people in deprived wards, but it was broadly similar to other areas.

·         There had been a recent change to JCVI cohorts – households of severely immune-suppressed patients were now in Cohort 6 - and additional clinics were being arranged to target these.

Councillor Graham Bridgman sought clarification as to whether the tables showed percentages of the total population who had been vaccinated, or percentages of the eligible population who had taken up the offer. He also asked about what was being done to tackle the low take-up amongst certain European white communities.

Action: Jo Reeves to confirm if the statistics related to total population or to eligible patients.

Action: Jo Reeves to discuss take-up amongst European white communities at the Inequalities Group and report back.

Councillor Steve Masters noted that some people had had their second vaccines cancelled and had been asked to re-book.

Jo Reeves explained that when appointments were being booked in January, the guidance had indicated that the second dose should be delivered after 12 weeks. However, deliveries were now being delivered at 11 weeks, which had required some appointments to be re-booked. She stressed that a second dose was available to everyone who had received their first dose.

Councillor Masters noted that some people had not been allocated an ethnicity in the statistics and inquired about how and when people were being asked for this information. He had spoken to community leaders who were promoting the vaccination programme and did not wish to be highlighted as not engaging. He also noted that some of the mis-information on social media appeared to be targeting certain white European communities.

Jo Reeves explained that ethnicity of patients was captured through the GP clinical system and work was ongoing to improve this in order to better understand the health needs of the population. She also confirmed that patients were also being asked their ethnicity by the people giving the vaccinations to help understand take-up amongst different ethnic groups. She agreed that there was a lot of support from faith leaders, which was being borne out in the data, but some gaps remained.

Councillor Masters asked about the Riverside pop-up clinic.

Jo Reeves explained that this would be reviewed once a further clinic had been held at the Racecourse. She stressed that appointments would need to be booked for pop-up clinics to avoid wasting vaccine. She offered to keep the Board informed of developments.

Councillor Dominic Boeck noted that data was not available for three practices and suggested that this could account for a high proportion of people in a particular MSOA or ethnic group.

Jo Reeves suggested that the Kintbury profile would be similar to Hungerford, and Lambourn, while Mortimer would be similar to Theale or Pangbourne, but acknowledged the need for more granular data. She suggested that the racing community may struggle to access vaccination centres and this might be an area where further efforts would be needed.

Councillor Boeck asked what data was missing.

Jo Reeves confirmed that it was patients who had received their vaccinations.

Councillor Jo Stewart indicated that many residents of wards in the east of the district would be registered with GP surgeries in Reading, and these areas had pockets of high deprivation. She suggested that these people may not be picked up in the statistics. She also asked if people were reluctant to be vaccinated due to concerns about the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Jo Reeves noted that NHS England provided weekly updates that captured vaccination take-up for residents rather than GP patients. She undertook to see if the LOEB could receive reports for West Berkshire residents. She stated that there had been very few people who had expressed concerns about the AstraZeneca vaccine.

Action: Jo Reeves to source data for West Berkshire residents rather than patients of West Berkshire GP surgeries.

Councillor Bridgman reiterated the need to show statistics for those who were eligible for the vaccine, but had not taken it up.

Meradin Peachey noted that the MHRA had a very good system for recording adverse events following vaccination. She explained that the MHRA and European regulators had reviewed the evidence for blood clots as a side effect of vaccination and concluded that this was very rare, with a very slight increased risk following the AstraZeneca vaccine. However, it was still safer to have the vaccine. The MHRA had recommended that people aged under 30 should have an alternative vaccine, because their risks from Covid were lower and it was just a precautionary measure. She stressed that the risk of clots was incredibly low (approximately 4 per 1,000,000). She indicated that there was no change to the target for all adults to be vaccinated by mid-July, since the Moderna vaccine would become available next week. The guidance was for health professionals to weigh up the risks for individuals in determining which vaccine was appropriate (e.g. history of clots), and for people under 30 to have a discussion with a clinician.

Councillor Bridgman noted that all medicines had potential serious side effects.

Councillor Martha Vickers stressed the need to help people understand the risks (e.g. comparison with the risks of blood clots from long-haul flights). She suggested that the media had over-reported the risks.

Meradin Peachey agreed with the points made by both Members. She highlighted that there was a similar risk from one of the flu vaccines and noted that blood clotting was a known symptom of contracting Covid. She indicated that national guidance was being developed in relation to communicating risk.