Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

Members are asked to declare any interests they may have in the business to be discussed.

Councillor Joshi declared an Other Disclosable Interest in the general business of the meeting in that his wife worked for the City Council’s Adult Social Care as a care assistant. He also declared an Other Disclosable Interest in the general business of the meeting in that he worked for a voluntary organisation for people with mental health issues.

As a Standing Invitee to the Commission, Mr Philip Parkinson (Healthwatch invited representative) declared an Other Disclosable Interest in the general business of the meeting in that he had a relative in receipt of a social care package.

In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct, these interests were not considered so significant that they were likely to prejudice the respective people’s judgement of the public interest. They were not, therefore, required to withdraw from the meeting.

The minutes of the meeting of the Adult Social Care Scrutiny Commission held on 22 September 2015 have been circulated and the Commission is asked to confirm them as a correct record.

RESOLVED:

that the minutes of the meeting of the Adult Social Care Scrutiny Commission held 22 September 2015 be confirmed as a correct record.

The Monitoring Officer to report on any petitions received.

There were no petitions.

The Monitoring Officer to report on any questions, representations or statements of case.

There were no questions, representations or statements of case.

The Commission will receive a verbal update from Mr Paul Bott from Vista, on the Leicester Ageing Together Initiative.

Mr Paul Bott, Chief Executive of Vista updated the Commission on the Leicester Ageing Together initiative. The following points were included in Mr Bott’s update:

·         Vista had been successful in securing funding to the value of £5m from the Big Lottery. This would fund 16 individual organisations with the aim of improving outcomes and reducing isolation for the over 50’s in Leicester. These organisations included local groups and national players and had been chosen by local older people.

·         There would be a range of activities offered around Leicester, with a focus on communities in Evington, Belgrave, Thurncourt, Spinney Hill and Wycliffe. In addition, there would be some city wide projects as well with activities focussing on a number of groups including Afro-Caribbean communities, people suffering from hearing loss and people who could not leave their own homes.

·         Vista were working with the Leicester City Council to deliver over 20 projects; almost all of which were already up and running.

·         It was anticipated that during the course of five years, the programme would reach 6000 people and would create £3m worth of local employment opportunities.

·         Vista would collect data from every partner which they would collate to create evidence as to what reduced isolation for the over 50’s.

Members congratulated Vista for being successful in securing the funding and thanked them for their work to reduce social isolation and loneliness. Members then made comments and raised questions which included the following:

·         Disappointment was expressed that the Humberstone and Hamilton and North Evington Wards were not included in the project. It was felt that both wards were in need of the support offered because they had a considerable number of elderly residents and lack of facilities.

Mr Bott explained that they had looked at a number of factors when deciding which wards to focus on. £5m appeared to be a substantial award, but it was not enough to do all that Vista would like to do. Vista would however be looking to secure additional funding during the lifetime of the project. Mr Bott added that Vista had a legacy of being successful in securing funding. A member asked that North Evington Ward be included in a future project if further funding was secured.

·         A query was raised as to how Vista would measure the success of their partner organisations’ performance.

Mr Bott responded that Vista had a contract with each of their partners. They would need to reach targets but if this was not happening, Vista would provide support and if necessary, funding would be withdrawn. There was an online monitoring tool, which would produce a substantial amount of data.

·         Members queried whether there was a contingency plan if funding had to be withdrawn from one of the partner organisations.

Mr Bott advised that if after supporting the organisation, funding had to be withdrawn, there would be a commissioning exercise and the funding would be re-allocated.

·         Mr Bott was asked whether there was a pathway for sharing information gained with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

The Strategic Director, Adult Social Care and Health submits a report that presents an overview of current Adult Social Care performance by providing information on the effectiveness and efficiency of the service along with the ‘customer journey’ or ‘care pathway’. The Commission is recommended to note the contents of the report and feedback on any further information they would like to receive.

The Strategic Director, Adult Social Care, submitted a report that presented an overview of current Adult Social Care performance.  Members were asked to be aware that when checking data against other regional comparators, there may be inconsistencies due to the differences in interpreting data.   It was anticipated that a new system being implemented would result in greater consistency.  In addition, the performance data was only a snapshot of the situation at a specific moment in time. Referrals were always coming in and the situation was very fluid. Data for a full year, when available, would provide a much clearer and more accurate picture.

Members considered the report and made comments and raised a number of queries, which included the following:

·         Are service users still being allocated 15 minute home visits from domiciliary care workers?

Members heard that the council did not commission any 15 minute visits, unless they were for a very specific purpose, for example to assist with a hoist.

·         Does the council provide aids for people with mobility needs?

Members were advised that mobility aids were supplied where it was determined that such aids were necessary.

·         Concerns were expressed that equality implications were not included in the report.

The Commission were advised that the report was not a decision making report, but rather provided an overview of performance; however equality issues were at the heart of the report. Views were expressed that equality implications looked at a number of different areas as well as ethnicity, and such information should have been included in the report.

The Deputy City Mayor suggested that the Commission might find it helpful to have a paper on the demographic profile of service users.  This could include information on gender, ethnicity, geographical and economic data. This could be circulated to Members, who could then decide whether they would wish to consider it further.

·         A comment was made that it was very useful to be given this information now rather than at the end of the year and that the reduction in the number of people being admitted into residential care was impressive.  Concerns were expressed however at the number of service users who had not been reviewed for 12 months or more, though it was acknowledged that efforts were being made to address this.

·         The Deputy City Mayor commented that it was important to measure people’s qualitative experience as well measuring quantitative information. The Chair added that it was also important to remember that the Local Authority was dealing with people with individual needs.

·         A Member commented that there was a shortage of carers and she questioned how people’s needs could be met, where they needed long term care.

The Deputy City Mayor responded that there was a need to ensure that carers received the support they were entitled to. The council would be carrying out a Carers’ Census, which would lead to an understanding of the landscape in the city. Quantitative information was available but so far, not enough was known about the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

The Commission will receive an update on the Development of a Specialist Dementia Care Scheme. On 21 September, the decision was taken to approve the development of the care scheme; the decision note and accompanying report are attached for information.

The Commission received an update on the Development of a Specialist Dementia Care Scheme; the decision to approve the development of the scheme was taken by the Executive in September 2015.

The Deputy City Mayor explained that currently it was not possible to identify potential sites for the scheme, but more information would be made available as soon as possible. Members were informed that the original draft timetable had changed due to the complexity of drawing up the contract, but it was hoped to be able to award this by the end of November 2015.

Members noted that the report stated that the service would have to be delivered without the option for ‘additional top ups’ and sought clarity on what this meant. The Director for Care Services and Commissioning explained that the local authority paid a set rate to providers, but they sometimes requested more or a ‘top up’ if a person had complex needs. With the new Dementia Care Scheme, top ups would no longer be paid by the authority because they had already provided land and investment. The local authority would be entitled to 50% nomination rights into the care scheme; it would be up to the providers to determine the pricing structure for the remaining 50% of their service users.

Members queried what safeguarding measures were in place in the event that provider had to withdraw from the scheme after a few years due to lack of money. The Commission heard that the due diligence process would be followed, but the land would be leased and in the event that the quality of care was not there, or the provider could not continue, the contract would be renegotiated. This was a commercial arrangement but it was also a partnership arrangement between the council and the provider.

A member referred to the Climate Change and Carbon Reduction Implications contained within the report and queried whether there would be any enforcement relating to energy efficiencies. The Commission heard that the council would expect that the scheme, as a new build, would be ambitious and imaginative in its energy solutions and these would be subject to the usual regulatory enforcement regime.

Mr Paul Bott, Chief Executive of Vista explained that one of Vista’s homes; The New Wycliffe Home, was a ‘Beacon Site’ and he invited interested Members to visit the home.  The Chair thanked Mr Bott for the invitation and asked the Scrutiny Policy Officer to arrange the visit.

The Chair thanked officers for the report and asked that the topic be retained on the Scrutiny Commission’s work programme.

RESOLVED:

1)    that the report be noted and the topic be retained on the Adult Social Care Scrutiny Commission’s work programme;

2)    that a visit to The New Wycliffe Home, for interested Members of the Commission, be organised by the Scrutiny Policy Officer

The Commission will receive an update on the progress of the Elderly Persons’ Homes Project. The commission is recommended to note the progress made on each aspect of the project, in particular:

1)    The successful transfer and sale of Arbor House and Thurn Court to Leicestershire County Care Ltd; and

2)    Progress on supporting the four remaining permanent residents at Preston Lodge to move to alternative accommodation.

The Deputy City Mayor presented a report which the provided the Adult Social Care Scrutiny Commission with an update on the progress of Phase Two of the Elderly Persons’ Home Project.

RESOLVED:

                        that the report be noted.

The Commission will receive an update on the Task Group Review into Models of Community Screening and Assessment.

The Chair and Vice Chair provided an update on the Task Group Review into Models of Community Screening and Assessment.

The Chair informed the Commission that the task group considered the council’s current single point of contact scheme which made assessments on people’s care needs and the development of a web portal which would allow online assessments. However, it was apparent that the resources and time taken to do these assessments might prevent other work from happening.

The task group would now look at how other areas in the country were being used as a trading arm in the community to carry out this process and also look at what the benefits or issues of such a system might be.

RESOLVED:

                        that the update be noted.

The current work programme for the Commission is attached.  The Commission is asked to consider this and make comments and/or amendments as it considers necessary.

The Chair asked Members of the Commission to contact her within the next few days if they wished to make any amendments to the work programme.

The meeting closed at 7.05 pm.