Agenda item

The Committee received the Improving Outcomes, Improving Lives Highlight Report for Quarter 1 2016-17, which provided an update for one of the six Corporate Improvement Plan objectives which falls within the remit of this Committee, as detailed within the circulated report.

Members were informed that overall the Service was on track and the focus remained on ensuring compliance with the Social Services Well-being Act 2014 promoting choice and independence and developing community based models. It was highlighted that work on direct payments continued in order to enhance the take up. Negotiations with Grwp Gwalia contracts continued, including remodelling of the Guaranteed Bed Commitment. It was noted that in managing safeguarding responsibilities a dedicated team of Designated Lead Managers was being established to manage safeguarding referrals. Work had also begun on developing a new protocol on meeting the requirements of the Act in terms of Adults at risk. It was noted that some of the performance indicators for the Service were not on the same level as last year and officers explained that the Service had been through huge change as part of the modernisation programme and this was to be expected.

Members noted the work that had been undertaken on direct payments and that it had an impact on a lot of areas for Adult Social Services. Members highlighted the number of people accessing direct payments and asked if it was as expected. Also what was the percentage of service users as only numbers had been included in the report. Officers explained that the target that had been set over the next few years was 40% of those accessing services to use direct payments and there had been fewer people than anticipated this year. However, it had been counterbalanced by the fact that they have been higher cost cases and had resulted in value being ahead of target. It was noted that there had been some resistance in it being offered by some homecare staff. It was highlighted that it was a requirement of the Act.

Members requested more detailed information on direct payments that included which protected groups were affected. Officers confirmed that this information was collated and breakdown would be reported to the Committee at a future meeting. It was noted that due to the type of service delivered it automatically included at least two protected groups of age and disability.

An example was given where a resident had not been given enough information regarding direct payments and was then told that they would be contacted over the phone, which was not acceptable. It was highlighted that due to the change homecare had undergone there were pressures on the service, however, it was recognised that this was not suitable and to make officers aware of any such incidents. Members asked if there was any guarantee that people could receive care from the provider of their choice. Officers explained that different service providers provided different levels of care, which would impact on which provider could be used. The only way to ensure who delivered the service was to take up the direct payment option as it gave people more control over their own care. Members highlighted that there had been cases where residents had been told they could not use direct payments for transport and was this correct. It was explained that it would take time for the new systems to embed and for officers to agree what was acceptable, however, in principle there was no reason why direct payments could not be used for transport.

It was noted that there were lots of options available of how to use direct payments and if it was to employ a personal assistant then the Council would be able to assist them to find the best match to meet their requirements. People do have the option to use other providers and this mainly happens in specific areas such as education and learning. There had been a lot of interest from people wanting to be recruited to the list of personal assistance and those recruited would undertake training to ensure they were suitable for the role. It was noted that there had been concerns about how people were employed and it was explained that the Council offered a brokerage service that managed employment terms on behalf those people with direct payments.

It was asked what the processes was if someone was interested in taking up direct payments. There were a number of ways, for example, if someone had a Social Worker then they could put them in touch with the right person or they could call the main number for the team.

Members noted that the Service was still in development and asked if officers were confident that the service would see improvements. Officers confirmed that they were and noted that a lot of the change had happened quickly as a result of the savings that had to be made to contribute to the Forward Financial Plan. Officers were positive that any resistance and negativity over the changes would be overcome and the benefits of the new systems would be seen.

Members asked if the Service was on track to complete assessments on time. It was highlighted that due to the major projects undertaken in the Service, which had a knock on effect and there had been unacceptable delays in assessments. It had taken up to six to seven weeks to complete assessments and the target was two weeks. However, it was expected that these targets should be met by the beginning of 2017.

Members noted that there were delays in people being discharged from hospital due to waiting for assessments and in that time the person can often deteriorate which can prevent them from returning home. It was recognised that there were better systems that could be put in place and it was being considered how best to do that.

Members requested clarity on the scoring of the risk section of the report. Officers explained that it was the corporate style that had been followed and that one column referred to likelihood and the other impact. Scoring ranged from 0 (lowest) to 5 (highest). The letters “H” and “M” in the table referred to “High risk” and “Medium risk” respectively. It was agreed that this would be fed back to Corporate Strategy team as they manage this process and it would be requested that a key was included in future reports.

Members asked if there were systems in place to manage the risk of external providers being unable to fulfil their commitments for home care. Officers highlighted that external organisations were regularly risk assessed and the Council had contingency plans in place if this did occur.

Following scrutiny, it was agreed that the report be noted.