To receive Report No. 119/2017 from the Director for People

Report No. 119/2017 was received from the Director for People.

The Portfolio Holder, Mr Clifton, introduced the report the purpose of which was to provide the scrutiny panel with the outcome of the Adult Social Care (ASC) peer review, which had two key lines of enquiry. ASC was seeking assurance from the reviewers of the Council’s effectiveness on the following:

1.     Personalisation and Independence

How successful had the Council been in embedding personalisation across all teams, including health and social care, and the impact this had on securing independence for service users?

2.     Quality of Practice

How effective had the Council’s culture change, multidisciplinary structure and professional development initiatives been in securing high quality practice?

Members had received an updated letter outlining the findings and conclusions from the Peer Review (Appendix A to Report No. 119/2017).  Changes had been made following a request from Rutland County Council (RCC).  Mr Clifton drew attention to the compliments paid to staff working within the team and how they were allowed to deliver the service.

The Deputy Director for People, Mr Andrews informed Members that the changes to the letter were as a result of the Council’s feedback on areas that it did not agree with:

·       Overview -  Areas for consideration (paragraph 3)

RCC’s feedback was that when here the review team did not speak about broad range only ethnics.  The review team missed that RCC had not hindered BME citizens; RCC acknowledged that there was work still to be done.

·       Personalisation – Areas for consideration (paragraph 1)

Data provided to the review team had not been taken into account.  RCC resubmitted the data and the original comment regarding the relatively low number of Direct Payments was withdrawn.  RCC acknowledged that there was still work to be undertaken as per the letter.

·       The letter contained contradictory comments regarding Direct Payments being used to employ Personal Assistants.  Members were advised that RCC did not have a problem with the number of Direct Payments being used to employ Personal Assistants.

Mr Andrews advised Members that there were two areas that RCC did not follow up on:

·       Overview – Areas for consideration (paragraph 4)

The review team noted “that the vast majority of staff didn’t talk about value for money ….” .  The letter did not mention that the staff who did comment on value for money were managers.   Mr Andrews explained that RCC had in place a system where frontline staff supported people to be as independent as possible and although they needed to be mindful of budget considerations it should not impair their vision; it was for managers to consider value for money at the sign off stage.

·       Overview – Areas for consideration (paragraph 1)

Policy of assessing people: RCC managed demand by a pro-active approach to providing care as soon as possible to prevent escalation and retain independence; and staff were open with people about their legal entitlements.

During discussion the following points were noted:

i)                 Members stated their agreement with managers considering the value for money aspect of care packages and early intervention to retain independence.  However, concern was expressed that this could be detrimental to educating frontline staff in costing services.  Members stated their hope that frontline staff were given opportunity to progress their career and were introduced to budgetary measures.

ii)               That with an ageing population the council needed to be conscious that going into a care home was not a failure.

iii)              The redesigned RCC website contained extensive information on adult social care.  The Rutland Information Service signposted people to the RCC website.

iv)             Safeguarding concerns, where Direct Payments were being used to employ Personal Assistants, were raised by Members.  The Panel was advised that there was an inherent risk with giving people more choice and that the person was the employer, not the Authority.  However, Rutland did have a designated Direct Payments worker who kept in close contact with service users.  Members were advised that currently RCC did not differentiate in payment between own and agency employed assistants.  RCC was considering banding rates to give more security in choice and a report was due to go to Cabinet.

v)               Responding to a question regarding transition arrangements in Rutland and the Review’s suggestion of a move to a more generic approach Members were advised that RCC would not be changing its practice.  The Authority had a legal responsibility for a child to transition to adult social care on their 18^th birthday; transition in Rutland began at 14 years of age with a social worker working on the transition with the children’s social worker and working with the family to enable a smooth transition.

AGREED

1.     That the Panel NOTED the outcome of the recent Adult Social Care Peer Review.