Agenda item

Nathan Atkinson, Assistant Director Strategic Commissioning, and Scott Clayton, Performance Officer, to present

Further to Minute No. 6(3) of the meeting held on 16^th June, 2016, Nathan Atkinson, Assistant Director for Strategic Commissioning, presented a report on the local measures that had been priorities to ensure that they reflected areas of Adult Social Care Service activity.  They also linked to the Council’s overarching strategic policies and strategies.

The Directorate Management Teams received regular updates of the current performance of the Local measures alongside the National ASCOF measures reporting.  Local measure in-year performance would be included in future Cabinet Member reporting arrangements.  This would align and run parallel to the agreed Corporate Plan and Improvement Plan reporting schedules.

It should also be noted that, in addition to the Local measures, a range of other measures of activity were also performance managed and reported via alternative reporting streams.  Service level management information measures were also regularly reported internally to Senior Management Teams.

The report set out the current performance challenges as at 31^st May, 2016, which included:-

LM01 – Reviews

LM02 – Support plans % issued

LM03 – Waiting times assessments

LM04 – Waiting times care packages

LM05-07 – commissioning KLOE’s

Discussion ensued with the following issues raised/highlighted:-

-          Was commissioning a problem for the Directorate or across the whole of the Authority?  Who decided if it was across the board and so who should look at commissioning or whether it was just in this particular Directorate and the Select Commission would look at it?

The Directorate had self-assessed itself as red in most of the category areas.  The way that Rotherham approached commissioning was a little behind its peers especially in relation to Adult Services.  In terms of the development plan commitments were around co-production for outcomes that we should be doing.  There was evidence of recent activity starting to move in that direction and engagement and involvement of officers working with communities and members of the voluntary sector was helping that.  The Directorate was very much at the start of the journey and a lot of work to do. The staffing structures had to be considered and the skills within the existing team which was doing very effective work but very much focussed on contract monitoring especially for care homes/statutory services, and the strategic side had been somewhat lacking.  There was much work to be done with Autism an absolute area that needed to be prioritised together with Mental Health and Learning Disabilities

Nathan had been asked by the Chief Executive to oversee the Corporate Commissioning Review which was part of the Improvement Plan and a fundamental part of the Authority’s journey to regain powers and within that would be looking at Children and Young People’s Services, Public Health and perhaps other areas where there was some commissioning.  That work was in its infancy but had a deadline of January, 2017 to conclude the review and publish the outcome.  Within that there were a number of gateways which were specified within the Improvement Plan

-          Where was the appropriate place for the scrutiny of commissioning?  Was it the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board or the Audit Committee?

This would be raised at the Board meeting the following day

-          At what stage would a review by ADASS be triggered or would it?

It was a Peer Review.  As commissioning on a Corporate level had to be reviewed in the first instance, support may be sought from ADASS to look at the Adult element or the Local Government Association to look at commissioning across the board but that was to be determined.  Peer challenge was to be welcomed as that was how you learnt and progressed.  At some point within the next 6 months it was hoped to have a Peer Review after the internal work had been carried out.  The real test would be when the Authority perceived itself to be on the improvement journey and the reviews would establish whether it truly was

-          When the Corporate Review was complete it would be an appropriate time to have the Peer Review to give comfort that someone had looked at the plan going forward

Absolutely agree

-          Had the performance clinic for LM01 been held yet?

The performance clinic was held on 20^th July with the lead officers that were accountable for reviews.  A number of actions had been identified that required further consideration including looking at a whole range of activity across the care management teams to capture activity rather than the traditional model.  The Care Act allowed the Authority to open up how reviews and self-assessments were carried out so that avenue needed exploring.  There were also a number of actions that were being looked at in terms of activity that the teams were doing working with the customers which fell short of a review but did not necessarily take into account the holistic approach of the current assessments.  The review activity allowed the Service to know whether the current package was working/whether or not things were improving or on a steady decline that would require further intervention

-          Were you confident that from the performance clinic and the suggestions that you have given that we can start to pull back on the figure and the measure of LM01?

It was a challenge and that had been recognised within the Senior Management Team by way of holding a performance clinic.   That process had started and identification of what the actions were likely to impact upon it to get assurance as to how quickly it could be recovered through the remedial actions to get to the 75% and work toward towards 100% overall

The service was still going through the Phase 2 of the remodelling and that came on stream in September which only left 6 months to pick up                                           those who would be identified and reviewed through the additional processes over and above what was captured in the current data

-          When performance clinics had first started there had been the opportunity for a Member to sit and observe/comment.   Given the number of new Councillors could that invitation be extended?

Discussion would take place with the Cabinet Member

-          If extending the assessment were you completely changing the assessment tool and have you time and motion studied how long staff will take to do it?

Part of the remodelling of the Service was looking at different ways of working where the actual input of staff time to get to the full assessment position could be reduced.  It was currently a time intensive process but it was hoped to be able to strip out some of the Council staff time which in turn would improve the throughput to help the Service achieve the numbers. In terms of the detail, paperwork and methodology, that would be changing as the current recording system would move to Liquidlogic which would go live in December

-          Where were/how positive results for individuals reported that resulted from their care package and support plans?

Through Liquidlogic and the associated recording there would be the opportunity to capture with the Service user what they actually wanted to achieve as an outcome and during that process whether they felt it had been actually delivered

-          The Corporate Plan contained some additional local measures.  Were these being added to this document for future reporting?

The Service reported on the Corporate Plan with the first quarter report due in September.  The additional local measures had been included in the Key Performance Indicator suite which were submitted to the Strategic and Directorate Management Teams for tracking and informing decisions that were ultimately reported back into the Corporate Plan.  If the Select Commission wished to extend the scorecard it was not a problem

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

(2)  That the opportunity for a Peer Review be welcomed.

(3)  That the outcome of the discussion with the Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health be awaited with regard to an Elected Member attending performance clinics.

(4)  That a report on Local Measures be submitted to the December meeting.

(5)  That it be noted that once the further report had been submitted in December the Select Commission would be in a clearer position to make recommendations as to how it went forward.