To receive Report Number 28/2017 from the Director for People.

Report No. 28/2017 was received from the Director for People.

Mr Clifton introduced the report, detailing the paper set out feedback from a number of channels, users and user surveys, a provider event and a carer event which Councillor Clifton and Councillor Waller attended. Feedback and comments from the panel would be shared to help development the final model for commissioning.

During discussion the following points were noted:

a)    Many providers did not respond to the invitation issued, however the event was well attended by those in Rutland. Providers are still able to provide feedback during the process.

b)    Ms Kibblewhite advised that time was being spent collating feedback and developing options for the model, the favoured options would be presented to the April meeting.  A two month period of soft market testing with potential providers, giving them the options and asking for feedback will allow for a more detailed modelling. Mr Begy requested a completion timeline to be added to the report.

c)    Adequate training of care staff was a national problem and not specific to Rutland, it was noted that there was a responsibility to shape the marketplace through this re-commissioning to ensure properly trained staff were on the frontline.  Miss Waller noted that the training required needed to be more specific to the needs of the service user, generic NVQ training, for example, may not prepare a carer to deal with complex cases such as those suffering with dementia.

d)    Mr Andrews noted that the Care Quality Commission (CQC) require a certain level of staff training, there was a need to find the right balance of for Rutland. Many of the issues recognised are things that are innate in the way the model is delivered, which is national.  There were more innovative ways being used in Scandinavia and Wales, money was being used in different ways.  There was a need to show a more stable career path for carers and an increase in the value placed on the work they do.

e)    Ms Newton noted that the authority did not necessarily have access to details of self-funded service users, in order to include those in the consultation the survey had been distributed in libraries and doctors surgeries. 

f)     Miss Waller noted from the staff feedback that not all staff were aware of whistleblowing issues and safeguarding. Ms Newton advised that care staff felt that the policies were long winded took a significant time to read.  Officers had made clear to all providers that some of their staff were unsure of procedure and that providers need to ensure all staff have read the policies and that subsequent checks have been carried out with service users to make them aware of procedures should they need them.

g)    Mrs Burkitt noted that some service users wanted continuity of care to absolve isolation and that service providers were not always able to do this properly.  High staff turnover was a contributory factor to this and that it could be unsettling for service users if carers regularly changed.  It was noted that better pay and training would help with staff retention.

h)   The Chair summed up saying that the opinion of the majority of panel members was that officers look at different models with risk and cost assessment.  He asked that they not shy away from a model that may seem expensive and that all options were brought to the panel.

-----oOo-----

Ms Newton left the meeting following consideration of this item.

-----oOo-----