Agenda item

·       Nathan Atkinson and Scott Clayton to report. 

Nathan Atkinson, Assistant Director Strategic Commissioning, and Scott Clayton, Interim Performance and Quality Team Manager, presented the Adult Social Care provisional year end performance report for 2015/16.

It was important to note that 2015/16 had been a transitional year where the Directorate had been seeking to change the existing customer journey and business processes in order to improve the customer experience and deliver better personalised outcomes.  The results over the performance areas included in the report to date had been positive showing improvements in many Indicator areas.

19 of the 22 ASCOF measures were showing improvement which included 100% (7 of 7) User Survey measure results.  50% (11 of 22) 2015/16 targets were being met including 71% (5 of 7) User Survey.

2015/16 was also the second year of the new national Short and Long Term (SALT) reporting annual return and the Council’s initial draft year-end figures which provided a useful first insight to Adult Social Care performance.  However, they were subject to change following national ratification of local partner data (RDaSH Mental Health performance) and Health partner submissions.

Discussion ensued on the report and appendix.  The following issues were raised/clarified:-

-          There had been a lot of Senior Management change.  What was your approach and how were you going to manage the basic performance during the change that was only half way through? 

It had been made clear that the programme of change had been set and any new appointment would have to follow that direction of travel.   The strategic direction that had been set was very sound and a sensible approach.  The development plan was an operational model so it was imperative that the 2 were brought together and ensure there was continued performance.  The measures contained within the report were national measures and there was a mandatory requirement to provide that information which tended to focus on the basics of the business that could not be lost sight of

The report compared last year’s performance with the previous year’s and showed that 86% of the measures had showed some improvement.  Although some of the improvement was very small it was reflective of what the programme acknowledged in terms of change and the need to be able to sustain performance.  Whilst showing improvement, only 50% had managed to hit their target.  This would be fed into this year’s target setting

-          What is your top priority?

The top priorities were the safety and quality of services for Rotherham residents.  In terms of performance measures, the priority would be permanent admissions to residential care for people aged 18-64.  There was a much higher number of people in residential settings in Rotherham than other parts of the country where there was more focus on supported living community/based setting.  It was a big challenge for the Service to maintain the direction of travel contained within the Strategy to move people away from the very traditional model of provision which was not always appropriate for everybody

-          What had been the main services which had seen an increase in requests and how had the increased demand been met?

There was no information but it would be forwarded.

However, it was indicative of what the Service area were saying.  Historically there had been very high numbers of people contacting the Service and, once they went through into the assessment and referral process, had a support package and at that point became long term and stayed with the Service.  It was the intention to change that and where possible signpost/direct clients to other ways of having their needs met so that less people were brought into long term services or alternatively, in terms of trying the short term maximisation of independence e.g. enabling, being more successful to turn support for those people around quickly and negate the Council having to put long term packages of support in to maintain their independence

-          What where the issues around funding for Continuing Health Care (CHC) and was it not something that could be addressed through the Better Care Fund and pooled budgets for Adult Social Care and Health?

Whilst there had been a higher number of admissions than in recent years, it was still relatively low.  The target had been 18 and there had been 29 but analysis had identified that when clients’ funding streams were reviewed, the CHC was not being continued 100%; once that funding arrangement dropped below 100% the Council had to pick up some of the funding arrangement.  From the Indicator point of view that person may well have been in that permanent admission for some time and not necessarily at the point that the funding ceased but had to be counted as a new admission

The Service was now trying to ensure attendance at the reviews and where possible, if the need was still there, trying to secure the continued funding and, therefore, averting the need for the Council to contribute to the support package

-          The rankings gave relative positions but how wide was the gap percentage wise for some Indicators where Rotherham was lowly ranked and where it was ranked first?  It would be helpful to see both ranking and percentage score for each local authority?

Some of the annual returns had only just been submitted so, whilst Rotherham’s performance was known, the performance of the other South Yorkshire and Humber (or the national picture) was not known.  The information would be published around October/November and at that time there would be the ability to compare if Rotherham’s relatively improved performance was mirrored, keeping pace or falling behind.  Once that data had been received a further report would be submitted

-          How would the Services manage poor performance as they continued to undergo transformation and change?  It was important to be able to identify where poor performance was and how quickly the Service was able to react to make sure the measures were put in place which improved performance as well as communicating to the people within that as to what it was doing?

Key Performance Indicators should not be relied solely upon but around the more granular intelligence and the information that came out of discussions with the end users of the services/carers/families linking in with the staff.  The voluntary sector had a role to play as well in raising issues and challenging the Service.  In terms of the performance approach, there was a need to capture as much real time information as possible which gave a retrospective perspective

-          On the scoreboard (1) Adult Social Care 18.8% ranked 13, (9) Mental Health Services and Employment 5.27% ranked 14, (12) Service users having enough social care as they would like 46% ranked 13, 26% of services who felt safe 66% ranked 15.  Could a response be provided as to how they would improve and what measures would be put in place?

A written response would be provided

-          Concern regarding the method of collating the data and the consultation

The ASCOF measures were set nationally.  It was survey based that all 152 councils were mandated to undertake and technically stipulated how it would be undertaken.  In terms of the Council’s annual user surveys, they had shown an upswing in terms of satisfaction and overall improvement in those areas but the user perception was a snapshot of that moment in time and did suffer a swing of opinion from the time the survey was conducted

-          The Commission would appreciate an overview of the performance measures and targets set for 2016/17

The priority set for the year end report had been around the national measures but the Service also undertook the setting of 2016/17 targets.  Once agreed by the Directorate Leadership Team they would form part of the regular reporting which would run alongside Q1 and national Indicators

-          Do you concentrate on the level of complaints that came in or go to Stage 2 as an Indicator?

Under the current structure, Complaints was a separate team and had its own annual report and regular reporting mechanisms so would not necessarily be included in the Adult Social Care performance report.  These were reported to the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board. 

Councillor Roche, Cabinet Member, reported that at the last Health and Wellbeing Board there had been a presentation of a national initiative “Sustainability and Transformation Plan”.  In this area it included South Yorkshire and Bassetlaw.  The key aim of the national funding was to reduce hospital admissions.  The Select Commission may wish to receive a presentation on the Plan at some point.  The Board was very conscious that the Plan did not sufficiently talk about intervention and prevention.  The more transformational the Plan was, the more money that could be drawn down. Now was the time for the Council to become involved in persuading partners to put that stress on prevention and intervention to reduce hospital admissions.

Resolved:-  (1)  That the provisional year end performance results be noted.

(2)  That a further report be submitted showing final submitted results and benchmark comparisons against regional and national data.

(3)  That a report be submitted on the local measures for the Select Commission’s next meeting.

(4)  That a response be supplied to the outstanding issues raised at the meeting.