Agenda and minutes

Resolved:- That the minutes of the meeting held on 7 July 2008 were approved as a correct record.

Kim Curry, Director of Commissioning and Partnerships presented the submitted report in respect of the Joint Commissioning Framework.

In accordance with priority 5 of the Joint Commissioning Strategy, the planning arrangements had been realigned so that they could deliver the objectives of the strategy.  The key areas covered were

• Role of the Adults Board
• Governance Issues
• Role of Priority Groups
• Service User Engagement
• Performance Management Framework

The role of the Adults Board was reinforced as a decision making body with responsibility for joint commissioning activity.  It had decision making powers with regard to:

• The development of the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment
• The endorsement of joint strategies subject to ratification by the Adult Services Cabinet Member and the RPCT Board
• Commissioning services which were subject to pooled budget arrangements
• Commissioning services which were funded through Health Act flexibilities
• Making decisions on areas of common interest where the Chief Executive of the PCT and the Strategic Director of Neighbourhoods and Adult Services had delegated powers.

In the interest of good governance it was felt that it would be inappropriate that the Cabinet Member made a decision under delegated powers in relation to a matter that they had been party to in a subordinate forum.  As a result it was recommended that Cabinet Member no longer sat on the Adults Planning Board.

A question and answer session ensued and the following issues were raised:

• The minutes of the Adults Board need to be included on future Cabinet Member agendas
• The Citizens Juries were made up of a handful of people who were chosen by the PCT.  The Local Authority were responsible for ensuring all work was undertaken, but it was the PCT who were taking the credit for it.  Assurances were given that this had already been picked up and rectified.
• An update was given in relation to OT’s

Resolved:- (1) That the Joint Commissioning Framework be noted

(2) That the Governance issues associated with the framework be noted

(3) That the Cabinet Member and his advisor relinquish their seats on the Adults Planning Board.

John Mansergh, Service Performance Manager presented the submitted report which outlined the 2007/08 key performance indicator results for the Adult Services elements of the Directorate.

At the end of the year, 15 (58%) key performance indicators achieved their year end targets compared to 47% last year.  There were 11 indicators that were rated ‘off’ target, and these were:

• Intensive home care
• Intensive home care as a proportion of residential care
• Physical Disabilities and Older People users helped to live at home
• Percentage of equipment delivered in 7 days
• People with Learning Disabilities helped to live at home
• People with Mental Health needs helped to live at home
• Acceptable waiting times for care packages
• Service users issued with a statement of need
• People under 65 admitted to residential or nursing care
• Assessments leading to a provision of service
• The number of over 65s admitted to residential care or nursing care
• The percentage of annual reviews
• Services for carers
• Direct Payments
• Acceptable waiting times for assessments

A question and answer session ensued and the following issues were raised:

• Whether the PCT were responsible for part funding the admittance to residential or nursing care for over 65s
• How the Directorate felt the recent Annual Review Meeting had gone.  It was reported that the meeting had gone well and that the Directorate had given an excellent account of itself and its progress through the year. 

Resolved:- That the results be noted.

Dave Roddis, Service Quality Manager presented the submitted report which provided information about complaints made during the twelve months between 1 April 2007 and 31 March 2008 under the complaints and representations procedures established through the Local Authority Social Services Complaints (England) Regulations, 2006.

Over the last 12 months the total number of complaints received had reduced from 425 to 228 (46%).  A centralised system of recording complaints had been implemented to ensure that performance in handling complaints was consistent across all directorates.  Details of each customer, each contact they make and each complaint point were recorded.  125 customers had submitted complaints compared with 159 in 2006/07.

94% of all complaints were responded to within the statutory timescales, compared to 88% in 2006/07 and 72% in 2005/06.  This was an improvement on the previous years figure with a significant improvement in responding to Stage 2 complaints, none of which had been responded to out of timescales.  The performance was the best in the Council for services who had more than 10 complaints.

The merger of the Adult Social Services and Neighbourhoods had completed in April 2008 and the complaints function was now fully integrated and worked to an established customer defined service standard.  Significant progress had been made in terms of improving performance in the following areas:

• Improving the timeliness of responses to customers
• Improving the quality of responses
• Learning from Complaints to identify service improvements, recognised nationally by the Cabinet Office
• Strengthening our performance management of complaints with monthly reports being presented to DMT
• Improving satisfaction of the complaint management process
• Promoting and increasing accessibility of the complaints procedure through the development of the internet, information packs and campaigns in our reception areas
• Training of complaint handling which had been delivered to all MS managers in Adult Services
• Meeting the new Government Customer Service Excellence Standard, one of the first organisations in the country.

A question and answer session ensued and the following issues were raised:

• There had been problems which had arisen in respect of meeting statutory deadlines for 3 Stage 3 complaints.  This had been due to
  • A customer being unavailable during the 30 day period.  It was agreed with the customer to identify a later date
  • The Adjudicating Officer was absent due to ill health when the original meeting was arranged.  The Panel was therefore delayed by two months whilst awaiting his return
  • The Investigating Officer was out of the country and could not be contacted for 5 weeks when the customer requested the complaint to be considered at Stage 3

Members were concerned at this but were assured that measures were in place to ensure this did not happen again in the future.

• A request was made for the in-house Complaints training to be made available to all members.

Resolved:- That the report be received.

Resolved:- That the next meeting be held on Monday 8 September 2008 commencing at 10.00 am.