Scott Clayton, RMBC, to present
Further to Minute No. 56 of 1st December, 2016, Councillor Roche, Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care and Health, together with Scott Clayton, Interim Performance and Quality Team Manager, and Sarah Farragher, Head of Service Independence and Planning, presented the Q3 Local Measures performance together with the four existing Corporate Plan measures for the period October-December, 2016.
The report set out the current performance challenges as at 31st December or as at 30th November ‘shut down’ of SWIFT/AIS data, 2016, which included:-
LM05-07 – Commissioning KLOE’s
LM08 (CP2.B3) – Number of people provided with information and advice first point of contact (to prevent service need)
LM09 (CP2.B5) – Number of carers assessments (only adult carers and not including young carers)
LM10 (CP2.B7) – Number of admissions to residential rehabilitation beds (intermediate care)
LM11 (CPS.B9c) - % spend on residential and community placements new measure 2016/17
The report also set out responses requested with regard to LMO1-LMO4 at the 17th January, 2017 meeting.
Discussion ensued with the following issues raised/highlighted:-
- Recently signed agreement for the Royal Society for Blind in Sheffield to develop an Enabling Centre in Rotherham.
- Overall the indicators across Adult Social Care (ASC) showed a very positive upward trend with most of the targets met or on the way to be met.
- Review of the current KPIs to check they were appropriate and fit for purpose.
- Summary of the pressures and challenges facing ASC overall and in relation to the Indicators.
- Improved information and availability of better cohort data meant a greater understanding of the customer base.
- LGA Peer Challenge findings of Commissioning in People’s Services across Children’s and Adult Social Care had been extremely positive. It had found good direction and that capability was not an issue, however, capacity was an issue. There had also been positive feedback about the Protection Team.
- LM01-04 were all Adult Social Work Services that clients were receiving some of which would be crosscutting packages and/or commissioned services from the independent sector.
- Once in receipt of services, clients should be reviewed in time. At the point of access there was a duty system which responded to immediate and priority cases within 24 hours and clients would be triaged and assessed. There were waiting times for assessments and reviews, the reasons for which were set out in the report, but the Service was picking up those that were in immediate need and prioritising that work. Whilst the figures needed to be improved significantly, people were being kept safe.
- It was known that there was an issue with the assessment of care packages and work was taking place. Services that impacted upon people were so very important.
- The four new cases would be young people that had come through CYPS TO Adult Services. Young people with complex learning disabilities and physical disabilities were now surviving into adulthood with increasing numbers of young people with Autism and the package of support was very intensive. It was a combined issue of the Directorate not having a sufficiently developed market in terms of being able to manage the costs of providers nor a sophisticated offer. Rotherham’s inhouse services were not set up to deal with people with the most complex needs. Every care package was being looked at to ascertain if costs could be reduced without impacting upon the care of the patients. This was the purpose of the Practice Challenge Group
- There had been significant vacancies within the Directorate for the past 12-18 months which had been put on hold until completion of the restructure. Some of the vacancies were now out to advert. There had been some backfilling with agency staff but that had been reduced due to the budget situation.
- Adult Social Care Social Workers had been regraded on the back of the work in CYPS, however, some of the enhancements offered in CYPS were not offered in Adult.
- Due to carers now being able to choose not to have their own assessment there would be a gap in the activity that was no longer captured. Through the use of the new recording system, the intention was to ensure that the staff at the front end were at least giving the opportunity to those carers to have a single assessment and for some services ensuring that it was done. That recording mechanism would give teams an opportunity to report that some carers had been through the process and opted not to have a carer’s assessment and the reason why. If the measure was continued going forward it might need a new baseline.
- The Mental Health Carers Team was located in RDaSH and their data was not recorded on the Authority’s system. It was hoped that Liquidlogic would resolve this issue. It was a small team and they had suffered sickness absences.
- The Carers Strategy was now approved, signed off and in implementation phase. Part of the action plan was how to get carers’ needs better assessed but the feedback received from carers was that actually the wording of the assessment was quite frightening; they felt they were being assessed as to whether they should be caring for their loved ones or not. A way forward was needed. There was also scope to build on the assessments undertaken by Crossroads to enable carers to access budgets and support.
- Care assessment reviews in the past had taken the form of a “tick box” exercise. Work was now taking place on how the review supported people to be more independent. There were massive changes taking place to the service at the same time as still running the service and had resulted in a dip in performance. However it was a recoverable position. Those that would not be a priority response would include self-funders who had now fallen below the threshold and waiting for re-assessment, those that wanted to make a change to their care package etc.
Resolved:- (1) That the report be noted.
(2) That continuing performance updates to be reported as agreed previously.
(3) That a demonstration of Liquidlogic and the cohort data dashboard be made to the Commission
(4) That Select Commission Members contact Janet Spurling, Scrutiny Adviser, on any areas they would like to focus upon during 2017/18 in relation to performance measures and targets.