Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

Councillor Joshi disclosed an Other Disclosable Interest as his wife had formerly worked in the Reablement Team within Adult Social Care, but was still employed by the City Council (Minute 32 refers) and that he was currently working for a voluntary organisation within mental health services (Minute 33 refers).

The minutes of the meeting of the Adult Social Care and Housing Scrutiny Commission, held on 5^th September 2013, have been previously circulated and members are asked to confirm them as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

that the minutes of the meeting of the Adult Social Care Scrutiny Commission held on 5 September 2013 be confirmed as a correct record.

The Director of Corporate Governance to report on the receipt of any petitions submitted in accordance with the Council’s procedures.

The Monitoring Officer reported that no petitions had been received.

The Director of Corporate Governance to report on the receipt or any questions, representations or statements of case.

The Scrutiny Commission are asked to note that the following question has been received from Cynthia Mackay, a resident of Stoneygate Ward, in the following terms: -

Elderly Persons Alarms

“As reported there are 55 people in Stoneygate Ward affected by the loss of funding for elderly people alarm bells. Can scrutiny tell me what plans will be in place to support these people if the funding goes. There obviously must be a plan otherwise vulnerable people may be left to die if they have a fall or anything else and left to die.”

A question had been put to the Scrutiny Commission by Cynthia Mackay, a resident of Stoneygate Ward, in the following terms: -

Elderly Persons Alarms

“As reported there are 55 people in Stoneygate Ward affected by the loss of funding for elderly people alarm bells. Can scrutiny tell me what plans will be in place to support these people if the funding goes. There obviously must be a plan otherwise vulnerable people may be left to die if they have a fall or anything else and left to die.”

In response the Director for Care Services and Commissioning (Adult Social Care) and the Assistant City Mayor, Adult Social Care explained that this related to people who lived in Housing Association properties who had their alarms subsidised by the Council. Cuts in external funding had resulted in a reduction in the Adult and Social Care budget and the proposal was a result of those budget cuts.

The current situation meant that the Council were subsidising the Housing Association as social landlords.  Officers were in discussions with the Housing Association about the issue as it was understood that the Association charged a service charge and it was queried as to whether this fee included an element to cover the alarm bells. 

Members queried that if the Housing Association could not help, whether there were any other grants available or whether a community meeting budget might be able to help.  Assistant City Mayor Patel said that it was understood that this approach was causing concern and stated that a consultation was on-going and officers would be talking to focus groups and individuals about the process. 

The Chair asked the Director to send a written response to the resident who had submitted the question as she was unable to be present at the meeting.

RESOLVED:

                        That the questions and responses be noted.

The Scrutiny Commission to receive a verbal update on Elderly Persons Homes proposals and that attention is also drawn to Minute 32 of the minutes of the meeting of the Adult Social Care Scrutiny Commission held on 5^th September, copy attached (Appendix A).

The Scrutiny Commission received a verbal update on the Elderly Persons Homes proposals. Attention was also drawn to minute 32 of the minutes of the previous meeting which had been attached to the agenda.  It was noted that the intention to take the decision had been recently published with the decision due to be published on 15 October 2013.

Members considered the timetable for the decision and questioned the wording of the response to the petition put at Council and emphasised the need to keep those affected informed and ensure full support is provided.  Concerns were expressed in relation to the timescale for the introduction of Intermediate Care facilities. The suggestion regarding the creation of a Commission for Older People was noted.

RESOLVED:

1.    That it be requested that information be brought to the next meeting regarding the direction of travel and timescales for the 60 bed intermediate care facility; and

2.    That it be requested that the Scrutiny Commission be kept up to date with the progress of proposals to set up a Adult Social Commission for vulnerable People.

Officers to update the Scrutiny Commission on the decision to implement the 6 month Enablement Pilot that would enable people with learning and/or physical disabilities attending Council day care services to experience greater community based opportunities.

I attach the presentation that was tabled at the last meeting for your information, together with a briefing note prepared by officers.

I set out below the link that will take you to the papers that were submitted to the Executive and were referred to in the ‘intention to make a decision’.

http://cabinet.council.leicester.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?id=381

The Scrutiny Commission received an update on the roll out of the recent 6 month Enablement pilot, which has been renamed Social Inclusion Service   and the recent decision to roll out the service provided by the Community Inclusion Team.  The pilot had run from September 2012 to March 2013. It was stated that the pilot and had been aimed at people with a learning disability and those with a physical and sensory disability attending the Council’s day care services to look at opportunities for them to attend mainstream community based activities.  The new service was not about replicating day care in the community.  Those taking part in the pilot had demonstrated that they can be part of the community and access culturally appropriate mainstream activities.

The roll out, which was supported by the Learning Disabilities Partnership Board and the Douglas Bader Client Committee, would mean that the team would be able to offer on-going support for individuals and carers and offer everyone in Council day services the opportunity to access the community in a meaningful way. The project would also address the issue of falling demand for day care services and allowed savings to be achieved and services re-designed.

RESOLVED:

That the Committee noted the progress and congratulated all involved for the success achieved so far.

The Director of Adult Social Care and Safeguarding presents a report that provides an overview of the rationale and approach to the proposal to close the Council run day care service for people with a physical and sensory disability at Douglas Bader Day Centre. A formal 3 month consultation exercise commenced with service users on 17^th September 2013.

I set out below the link that will take you to the papers that were submitted to the Executive and were referred to in the ‘intention to make a decision’.

http://cabinet.council.leicester.gov.uk/ieDecisionDetails.aspx?ID=390

The Scrutiny Commission considered a report of the Director of Care Services and Commissioning which provided an overview of the rationale and approach to the proposal to close the Council run day care service for people with a physical and sensory disability at Douglas Bader Day Centre.  A formal 3 month consultation exercise had commenced with service users on 17^th September 2013.

It was noted that there had been a 25% drop in the number of clients attending the Centre since 2011 with a consequent rise in costs. The options to address the issues together with advantages, disadvantages and risks were detailed in the report.  Following consideration by the Executive a 3 month consultation exercise on closure had commenced on 17 September.

Members asked that they receive details of feedback from the consultation and receive an update at the meeting of the Commission scheduled for December.  In response it was suggested that it would be difficult to feedback at the meeting in December as the consultation would be on going.  It was suggested that the views of the staff unions should be heard by the Scrutiny Commission.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the Executive Member be requested to bring a full report on the results of the Consultation to the meeting scheduled for January 2014; and

2.    That staff trade union representatives be given the opportunity to make any representations at the next meeting of the Scrutiny Commission.

The Chair to announce the intention to hold a joint scrutiny review with the Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Commission on the University Hospitals of Leicester’s plans for the Accident and Emergency Services Winter Planning for the elderly and frail.

A Scoping Document to follow.

Details were given of the forthcoming joint scrutiny review with the Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Commission on the University Hospitals of Leicester’s plans for the Accident and Emergency Services Winter Planning for the elderly and frail.  A scoping document for the review was considered.

It was noted that meetings had been arranged for 24 October, 14 November and 19 November 2013.

RESOLVED:

                  That the scoping document be agreed.

The Scrutiny Commission to be notified of those current consultations that were either planned, or underway, and that were within the remit of the Scrutiny Commission.

Consultations were currently on-going regarding:

·         Stopping the council’s current Mobile Meals service and helping people to prepare or obtain meals in alternative and more flexible ways.

Consultation due to close on 7 October.

It was stated that it was hoped to bring a report to the Scrutiny Commission at the meeting scheduled for November.

·         Proposed changes to the Housing Related Support services.

Consultation due to close on 20 November.

It was stated that it was hoped to bring a report to the Scrutiny Commission at the meeting scheduled for January 2014.

·         Douglas Bader Day Centre.  Considered earlier in the meeting (minute no. refers).

The consultation was due to run from 17 Sep 2013 to 16 Dec 2013.

It was stated that it was hoped to bring a report to the Scrutiny Commission at the meeting scheduled for January 2014.

It was noted that it was intended to undertake consultation regarding preventative services with the voluntary sector.  It was anticipated that this consultation would commence in November with a report brought back to the Scrutiny Commission in March or April 2014.

RESOLVED:

                  That the update on consultations be noted.

The Scrutiny Commission to receive the current Work Programme for consideration and comment.

The Chair brought forward the Adult Social Care Scrutiny Commission draft work programme and asked Members for their comments.

Future items included Accident and Emergency for older people; the Chair explained that Councillor Chaplin would be looking at the winter care plan as part of this topic.

In respect of the Domiciliary Care Plan, the Chair commented that she was keen to take this forward in the light of the concern that some people were only getting 15 minutes care as part of their support plan. It was agreed to add this.  The Chair identified the following key questions which she felt the Scrutiny Commission should consider:

·         Need to explore how the procurement exercise proceeded

·         How many orgs applied?

·         How many awarded contract were existing providers?

·         What criteria was used to decide?

·         Did we use previous evaluations when making decisions as to new contracts?

·         What is the staff establishment of the providers?

·         Are they covering certain areas of the city or the whole city?

·         Is there any focus specifically in ethnic communities?

·         Do we have 15 minute visits? If yes, what are they for and what times are allocated for them?

RESOLVED:

1.    That the work programme be noted and amended as agreed; and

2.    That an item concerning the Domiciliary Care Review be added to the agenda for the next meeting and the questions raised be considered to inform the scoping for the review.

The Scrutiny Commission to receive a brief presentation that will provide an overview of implementing Personal Budgets and Direct Payments in Leicester. A copy of the presentation is attached, together with an Adult Social Care ‘jargon buster’.

The Director of Adult Social Care and Safeguarding presented to Members an update on the implementation of personal budgets and direct payments in Leicester. 

The presentation gave details of:

·               The definitions of key terms

·               The history of direct payments and how direct they were managed

·               The development of personal budgets and details what was tested and implementation

·               National and Leicester learning

·               A summary of service users for April – September 2013

·               Supported Assessment and Resource Allocation systems and how they work

·               Support planning and brokerage work

·               Details of key issues for Members consideration.

It was noted that many users would see little difference however some would take the opportunity to do different things.  In terms of questions it was stated that monies were paid direct to the service provider and not spent by the user.

A multi-disciplinary approach would be taken in order to help service users with mental health issues for example.  A key challenge was acknowledged as communicating the changes to users and supporting them through the process.

RESOLVED:

That the presentation be noted and that a six month report that evaluates the effectiveness of the indicative personal budgets be brought back to the Scrutiny Commission.

The meeting closed at 7.21pm.