Agenda and minutes

Councillor Jim Richardson commented on the lack of consultation relating to developments at Swallownest Court that would include a psychiatric intensive care unit.  Residents in the area had been extremely unhappy and were holding the Parish Council responsible.  He felt that Rotherham Council should have made more effort to consult with residents and keep them informed.

Councillor Jack confirmed that a meeting was taking place about Swallownest Court on Monday 13^th July 2009 at Aston Comprehensive at 7.00 pm which everyone was invited to attend.

Irene Samuels declared an interest in item 6 “Emergency (999) Services – Performance in Rotherham”, as her son in law had recently taken up post with the ambulance service.

George Hewitt declared an interest in the item 10 “Voluntary and Community Sector Review as he was a member of the Rotherham Carers Forum.

There were no members of the public and press present at the meeting.

Martyn Pritchard, Chief Executive, Yorkshire Ambulance Service and Andy Buck, Chief Executive, NHS Rotherham gave a presentation on the Emergency 999 Services performance in Rotherham.

The presentation drew specific attention to:-

• Yorkshire Ambulance Service (YAS), a regional service – in Facts and Figures
• Where the YAS fit with the rest of the NHS
• Working across the region’s Partnerships
• Key Measures
• Progress made in 2008
• Clinical Performance Indicators (CPIs)
• Response Times for YAS
• Resources and Investment
• Response times for Rotherham
• Paramedic Practitioner Scheme
• Next Steps
  • What we are doing now
  • How we can work together

A question and answer session ensued and the following issues were discussed:-

• How many hoax calls were made to the Ambulance Service.  It was confirmed that there were very few hoax calls, but there were calls which were not true emergencies and could better be dealt with by another service.
• Was the 8 minute response time target, an average time?  Confirmation was given that the minimum 8 minute response time had to be met 75% of the time in order to meet the target.
• Did the response refer to a medical person responding within 8 minutes or was it simply that a vehicle arrived within this time?  It was confirmed that this would include response by a Community First Responder or a paramedic.
• A query was raised as to whether the Category A 8 minute target which had been achieved by Rotherham was sustainable.  Confirmation was given that with more staff, better communication technology and more staff “off station on standby” it was achievable to sustain this target.
• What caused YAS to have registration conditions imposed on it, with respect to managing infection, and had the problem now been resolved?  There were two major issues which caused this, one of which was that the trust was implementing infection control practices, but was not recording them adequately.  The other was uncertainty about whether voluntary car drivers and St Johns Ambulance were part of the scheme.  However the former had since been addressed and guidance had now been issued which clarified that these vehicles were excluded, so the Trust had now been able to declare itself fully compliant and had had its registration conditions lifted.
• Does the commissioning process meet the requirements of ‘World Class Commissioning’?  2-3 years ago it was not fit for purpose but work has been undertaken with the 12 PCTs resulting in significant improvements, so that it was now working towards meeting the ‘world class’ criteria.
• Does NHS Rotherham get value for money for its 999 services?  It was believed that the investment made by the 12 PCTs was justified and they were confident that value for money would be obtained once the contract was meeting all its clinical indicators and response targets.
• Why were YAS consistently underachieving on the Cat B, 19 minute target, both across the YAS area and in Rotherham?  Cat A calls had always taken priority which had impacted on the target for Cat B.  Steps  ...  view the full minutes text for item 18.

Rotherham Women’s Refuge – To nominate one female elected member to replace Councillor Pat Russell. 

Resolved:- That this item (Nomination to the Rotherham Women’s Refuge) be referred back to the Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care.

Lisa Taylor, Ministry of Food Manager gave a Powerpoint presentation on the Ministry of Food – Impact to Date.

The presentation drew specific attention to:-

• What is the Ministry of Food?
• Why bring Ministry of Food back?
• What does Ministry of Food Centre do?
• What is “Pass it on”?
• What are the benefits of coming to the Ministry of Food?
• Events which have taken place
• Classes
• Measures taken
• News – Ministry of Food goes from strength to strength.

A question and answer session ensued and the following issues were discussed:-

• Where was the current source of funding?  This was mainly from the Government and regional grants and did not include any mainstream Council funding. 
• When would the first formal evaluation report be available?  It was expected that this would be produced during August and would be available for circulation to the Panel in September.
• It was felt that although children accepted that healthy food was good for them, they still preferred to eat pizza and burgers.  What could be done to change their perception and sustain healthy eating?  Children were being offered healthier options of the food they liked which was proving successful.  The impact of the courses would be monitored after 6 months and 12 months and reviewed to ensure sustainability.
• There appeared to be little effort made to involve ethnic groups in the ministry of food.  Was anything being undertaken to address this?  Guest chefs were being invited to come along and demonstrate healthy Asian and Chinese food in the very near future.
• What was the monthly cost of running the project, and when would the current funding run out?  The cost was £10,500 per month and the current funding would last until September 2011.

Members thanked Lisa for her presentation.

Tom Sweetman, Innovation Manager gave a Powerpoint presentation about the work of the Innovations Team.

The presentation drew specific attention to:-

• Who the Innovations Team are
• What the Innovations Team are
  • Formed in January 2008
  • Hand-picked – alternative to Project Managers and Consultants
  • Part of Neighbourhoods and Adult Services
  • Transformation services and processes
  • Deliver efficiencies
  • Change Management
  • Raise profile of services
  • Customer focussed consultation
  • Operate across all directorates

• Why the Innovations Team exist
  • To deliver change and efficiencies across the Council
  • Bespoke team
  • Making changes to frontline services
  • Working with customers
  • Holding Visioning Events
  • Better processes – shortened waiting times
  • Focus on customers

·        Updates by each member of the Innovations Team about the work they were currently involved in

A question and answer session ensued and the following issues were discussed:-

• Members of the panel were impressed by the enthusiasm of the team and the work that they were doing.  As a customer how could contact be made with the team?  It was confirmed that there was a single Assessment Direct number now available to make it easier for customers to make contact about any issue.
• What were the main projects being undertaken at present, what were the priorities for the coming year and what actually dictates the work programme?  It was confirmed that the Service Plan launch would dictate what work was undertaken by the team.
• Concerns were raised that the team appeared to be very laden down with ongoing work, and the question was asked whether there were enough resources to sustain the good work being undertaken.  Confirmation was given that when a project was started, officers in the relevant programme area would also engage in the work being undertaken.

Members thanked Tom and his team for their presentation.

Tim Gollins, Strategic Commissioning Manager presented the submitted report which summarised the contract review process for the voluntary and community contracts held by Neighbourhoods and Adult Services.

The services identified at Appendix 1 were all contracted on a block basis which meant that the council purchased the service on behalf of the customer who was there offered a place.  This mechanism for customers accessing services was not personalised and in some instances needed to be changed.  This was a recommendation made in the cases of Sense Supported Living, Age Concern Handyperson Service and Crossroads Sitting Contract.

A second set of contracts needed their service specifications tightening to be outcome led, after which a tendering exercise could deliver better value for money.  These were Age Concerns Advocacy, the Carers Forum, Alzheimer’s Support Group and RNIB Information Service.

The Sense contract required full renewal cost and volume purchase basis because of the essential function the service performed, the RNID communication service was also essential and needed to be re-contracted, whilst the RNID equipment services needed to be reorganised as demand and complexity meant the current specification and operating model required updating.  This would be done in partnership which RNID over the next year, resulting in a revised service that could be tendered.

A key factor in the review was strategic relevance of the services in light of personalisation in particular and the approach to deciding this was led by a set of working priorities.  Over the next six months these working priorities would be revised and replaced by a comprehensive strategic commissioning approach.  This approach was being developed in partnership with the Voluntary Sector led by Voluntary Action Rotherham.

A question and answer session ensued and the following issued were discussed:-

• In the initial summary “being more outcome focussed” was mentioned.  Members queried what was meant by this.  It was confirmed that with personalisation customers were given a budget to purchase service which suited them and their circumstances rather than being directed to a specified service.
• What would happen to the contracts which were to end in September 2009?  Was it possible for funding to be given over a longer term to allow voluntary groups time to make more long term plans?  It was anticipated that future contracts would be tendered for 3 years.
• Concerns were raised about direct payments and how some old people may struggle to cope.  Confirmation was given that support services would be available to all old people should they require it.

Consideration was given to the LINk Annual Report.

Resolved:- That the content of the report be noted.

Consideration was given to information received in respect of the “Expert Patient Programme” courses.

Resolved:- That the information be noted.

Consideration was given to the submitted report in respect of the Supporting People (SP) Programme.

As part of the 2008/09 Local Government Finance Settlement, Ministers announced changes to the funding of the SP grant.

Summary of changes:-

• For 2009/10 the SP programme grant would be paid as an unringfenced named grant.  Lifting the current ringfence from the grant meant paying funds to local areas without the current grant conditions.
• In 2010/11 the grant would be paid as part of the Area Based Grant.  This meant the funding would be delivered in one single payment made to council’s each month.

The report outlined the potential changes to the programme resulting from the two major changes identified above.

Recommendations were made by Supporting People Commissioners on how these changes should be managed.

Resolved:- (1) That the report be noted.

(2) That from April 2009 there was a seamless transition to the governance arrangements for the Area Based Grant.

(3) That the currently established commissioning structures for Supporting People were maintained until March 2010 to deliver the 2008-13 Supporting People Strategy.

Resolved:- That the minutes of the meeting of the Panel held on 4^th June, 2009 be approved as a correct record for signature by the Chair.

Resolved:- That the minutes of the meetings of the Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care held on 27^th April 2009, 8^th June 2009 and 22^nd June 2009 be received and noted.