Agenda and minutes

Resolved:- That the minutes of the meeting held on 6^th July, 2009 be approved as a correct record.

Shona McFarlane, Director of Health and Wellbeing presented the submitted report which informed Members about the formation of a S75 agreement to support the Joint Supervisory Body that had been developed in partnership with NHS Rotherham under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been introduced through the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The safeguards ensure that a deprivation of a person’s liberty could only take place when it was in their best interest and authorised by the Supervisory Body.  The Safeguards also gave legal protection to the relevant person, including the right to:-

• An independent representative to act on their behalf
• The support of an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA)
• Have their Deprivation of Liberty reviewed and monitored on a regular basis
• Challenge the Deprivation of Liberty through the Court of Protection

The new statute in relation to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) came into force on 1^st April, 2009.

Supervisory bodies are responsible for overseeing the DoLS process at a local level and it is their role to commission and co-ordinate the assessment process and appoint assessors.

Local Authorities and PCT’s that enter into formal s75 partnerships are able  to carry out any of their functions on each other’s behalf.  This means, for example, that an assessor who was employed by the Local Authority may be covered by the indemnity/insurance of the PCT where they undertook the assessment on behalf of the PCT and vice versa.

A number of multi agency training sessions had been commissioned specifically around the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and 2 sessions had been provided specifically for ‘managing authorities’.  An appointment had been made to the newly created, joint funded post of ‘Safeguarding Adults and Mental Capacity Act Training and Development Manager’.  It was envisaged that a comprehensive training would be developed through a multi-agency working group.

The report detailed the number of authorisation requests which had been received and these were comparable with other Local Authorities in the region.

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

• What timescales had been set and whether these were being met?  Confirmation was given that initially in April the timescales were to undertake an assessment within 42 days, but this had been reduced to 21 days with effect from May.  It was confidently felt that with the structures which were in place, that this timescale could be met.
• A discussion took place around what measures were in place to support people with Alzheimers Disease.  It was felt that it was brought on in some people as a result of loneliness and that measures should be put in place to prevent this.  The Director of Health and Wellbeing agreed with this and confirmed that structures were being developed which would address this, which included working closely with the Alzeimers Society.  A comment was made that most people did not know what assistance was available and it was agreed that more emphasis was required on raising awareness  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

The Director of Independent Living submitted a progress report on the above review detailing the findings to date, emerging proposals and recommendation relating to future use.

The review findings to date highlighted that the use of the centres, revenue expenditure and investment required in each centre varied significantly.  Initial findings and recommendations relating to each of the centres were provided in an overview which was attached as Appendix 1 of the report submitted, the details included:-

-           Centre location

-           Ward

-           The facilities available within each centre

-           Condition of the centre

-           Service requirements/usage

-           Risks

-           Rental income, expenditure and the payback period

-           Costs to improve to ensure ‘fit for purpose’ and DDA compliance

-           Initial community comments/concerns/aspirations

-           Other community facilities located within the neighbourhood

63% of all Ward Members, or at least 1 Ward member within each Ward, had attended meetings with the Neighbourhood Centres Manager and Neighbourhood Investment Services to discuss and develop initial recommendations and assess the potential impact of the review findings for each Centre within their Ward.  The issues raised included:-

o                   The importance of the Centres in preventing isolation and social exclusion

o                   Loss of laundry as some bungalows could not accommodate independent washing facilities: in addition reduction of Borough-wide Laundry Service

o                   Further loss of services for aged persons following changes to Meals of Wheels Service, Laundry Service etc.

o                   The rental income exceeded the expenditure on the majority of centres and no visible or recent investment or ringfencing of monies was apparent

o                   Misuse of Centres by Council and 2010 Ltd. operatives

o                   The need to explore the potential to opt out of the charge and service

o                   Support for increased use e.g. NHS locality based services and Safer Neighbourhood Teams

o                   Sensitive letting of void flats and accommodation attached to Centres

Based upon the identified use, investment requirements, revenue expenditure and proximity to other communal facilities, initial recommendations were as follows:-

§                     46 Centres (79%) to be retained and their use maximised – they would be programmed for essential repairs and improvements as per the indicative 15 year investment programme attached at Appendix 2

§                     5 Centres (9%) needed further investigation to determine options for alternative use -

§                     7 Centres (12%) required more detailed consultation to inform recommendations due to the potential for decommissioning – consultation to take place in July.

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

• A comment was made that the neighbourhood centres played a big part in the community and it would be tragic if they were to be closed.  It was agreed that some were used more than others but it would be more beneficial to encourage usage of those currently not being used than to close them. 
• It was noted that a lot of the neighbourhood centres belonged to the residents and as such was included in their rent.  It should therefore be taken into consideration when offering the facility out to members of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

- To agree attendance at the National Homecare Council Conference to be held in London on 6th October 2009 and to nominate a delegate to attend.

Consideration was given to attendance at the National Home Council Conference in London on 6^th October 2009.  The Cabinet Member was asked to agree attendance for a member and a nomination was sought.

Resolved:- (1) That the Cabinet Member agree to attendance for one Member at the above conference;

(2) That Councillor Frank Hodgkiss be nominated to attend.

(Exempt under Paragraph 3 of the Act – information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person)

Chrissy Wright, Director of Partnerships and Commissioning presented the submitted report in respect of Home from Home.

Home from Home was a new and innovative way of raising standards in contracted residential and nursing care homes in Rotherham.  The framework increased the quantity of the assessments on any single home from one year to three.  Previously there had been one assessment from a contract and review officer, but this was now supplemented with an assessment from customers, led by the service quality team and another by NHS Rotherham of the quality of health care provided in the home.

Since the last report, a further 20 homes had been assessed and a current list of ratings awarded was appended to the report.

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

• A query was raised about the ratings and whether there was a clear explanation on the website to assist members of the public to understand them.
• Concern was raised that the rating for Broom Lane Care Home had gone from excellent to good and the question was asked as to why this had happened.  The Director of Commissioning and Partnerships agreed to look into this and report back to members.

Resolved:- That the details of the progress on Home from Home be received.

The following item is likely to be considered in the absence of the press and public as being exempt under those paragraphs, indicated below of Part 1 (as amended March 2006) of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

Resolved:-  That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in those paragraphs indicated below of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972.

(Exempt under Paragraph 2 of the Act – information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual).

Consideration was given to a report in respect of the decision and recommendations made by the Adult Social Services (Complaints) Review Panel for Mr J A

Resolved:- That the decisions of the Complaints Panel and the reasons for the decisions, outlined in the letter of response dated 3^rd July 2009 to the complainant be received.

(Exempt under Paragraph 2 of the Act – information which is likely to reveal the identity of individuals)

(Exempt under Paragraph 2 of the Act – information which is likely to reveal the identity of an individual)

Consideration was given to a report in respect of the decision and recommendations made by the Adult Social Services (Complaints) Review Panel for Mr D O

Resolved:- That the decisions of the Complaints Panel and the reasons for the decisions, outlined in the letter of response dated 3^rd July 2009 to the complainant be received.

(Exempt under Paragraph 2 of the Act – information which is likely to reveal the identity of individuals)

Councillor Jack expressed an interest in this item as she had been a member of the Panel who had made the decision.