Issue - meetings

·        To select appropriate items from the Cabinet agenda for pre-decision scrutiny (cabinet reports enclosed for Scrutiny Members)

Audit Wales - Service User Perspective

Members considered the report as circulated within the Cabinet agenda.

Following scrutiny, the recommendation was supported to Cabinet.

Audit Wales - Service User Perspective

Members considered the report as circulated within the Cabinet agenda.

Officers outlined the remit of the report. They advised members that whilst they were not fully in agreement with the recommendations outlined in the report from Audit Wales, officers acknowledge that there is further work to be done. The Organisational Response Form provides a succinct response to the recommendations from Audit Wales and it has been accepted by them.

In terms of user feedback, there are a number of examples of where user feedback is collected across the authority. Officers provided examples of where this is done. Examples included a report from Social Services on Housing and Community Safety. This was the annual report on participating and includes engaging with service users to determine what is important to them. Officers referred to The Children and Young People’s Plan where there was a consultation carried out and a number of feedback obtained. Information is also collected via the Compliments and Complaints Procedure and this is collated and analysed to look for improvements that can be made to the service. It was also acknowledged that a similar process is used by the Customer Services Team. Officers outlined that they are working with Audit Wales to ensure that the information collected is robust and doesn’t cause extra work for officers in collating the information.

Members queried which parts of the recommendations from Audit Wales are not accepted by officers. Officers outlined that the work carried out by Audit Wales was very narrow and was part of a national piece of work that was carried out. Officers accepted that the authority does collect a lot of service user perspective data, however further work was required strengthening how this data is collated and used.

Members noted that in some areas, the authority was not perhaps understanding the service user perspective when making decisions.

Members referred to the two recommendations in the report.

Members considered the two actions identified in R1as quite sensible R1 two actions as quite sensible, however suggested that there might be some more work to be done to make sure senior leaders understand the value of having the data and what it is for. Members recognised that the authority need to understand why the service data is important and how it can be used to improve the service. Some services are people centric and members considered these areas to use service user data perspective well. However suggested that where the service was not people centric, then the authority tended to focus on targets as opposed to the service user perspective.

In terms of the quality and accuracy of the data outlined in R3, members referred to the response that there would be an engagement with the internal audit about checking information quality and accuracy of information and queried if the authority needed an action further back to make sure data is being gathered correctly at the first point? Is there further work required to upskill workers  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4