Agenda item

The Director for Care Services and Commissioning (Adult Social Care) submits a report outlining the results of the consultation on thefutureof Douglas Bader day care centre.  The Commission is recommended to consider the report and comment as appropriate.

The Director for Care Services and Commissioning (Adult Social Care) submitted a report outlining the results of the consultation on the future of the Douglas Bader day care centre. 

The City Mayor reminded the Commission that the consultation on the future of the centre had started in August 2013.  The centre was not functioning to the same level as it had previously, as some of the service users had opted to use their personal budgets to access other facilities.  Although there were approximately 40 registered users for the centre, average attendance was only just over 20 people per session.  Although the centre was valued by the users, it was not able to offer all the services it had done previously, as the low numbers made it unviable for external facilitators to come into the centre and work with groups.

The City Mayor stressed that it was important to end the uncertainty about the centre’s future as soon as possible.  In addition, many people had groups of friends there and it was important that they were able to continue to do things together.  Help and support for individuals and groups during the transition to alternative facilities also was very important.

Having considered the responses to the consultation, the condition of the building and views obtained through discussions with people, it had been concluded that the centre was no longer fit for purpose, or the best facility that the Council could provide.

Steven Cooper, Chief Executive Officer for the Leicester Centre for Integrated Living (LCIL), addressed the Commission at the invitation of the Chair, making the following points:-

·           LCIL supported disabled people in Leicester and Leicestershire, one of its significant roles being engagement of, and with, disabled people of any age;

·           LCIL would welcome the closure of the centre;

·           Many people had never favoured only being offered day centres, but through personalisation and empowerment these views could now be taken in to account;

·           An engagement event had been held on 8 February 2014 for parents and young adults to discuss their concerns for the future.  The view that had emerged from this was that people favoured an end to day centres; and

·           Independent living involved individuals taking control of what they wanted.  Support therefore was requested from non-disabled associates to procure the services that best met people’s needs.  This would help it to be recognised that even those with the same diagnosis could have very different needs.  Day centres rarely delivered this flexibility.

Jonathan Strange, a disabled community member, then addressed the Commission, at the invitation of the Chair.  A copy of his presentation is attached at the end of these minutes for information.

The following points were made during discussion on the proposals set out in the report:-

o    It was recognised that, although some people welcomed the closure of the centre, others wanted it to continue to operate, including some people who had used centre since it opened;

o    The day centre originally catered for people up to the age of 65, but approximately 20% of users were now aged over 65, as there now were staff available to support these people, due to the low numbers;

o    A significant proportion of centre users had profound physical disabilities;

o    Whatever was offered as an alternative to the centre needed to respect people’s needs as individuals or groups.  For this reason, a range of offers needed to be made;

o    A lot of users of the centre had not previously been aware of what alternative provision was available and had not had the opportunity to try these alternatives.  However, they were now looking at what was available and what opportunities and life chances the alternatives could offer;

o    A lot of work was needed to bring the centre back up to a suitable standard.  This was complicated by the amount of asbestos that had been used in its original construction;

o    Alternative offers would be made through a framework of 19 providers, some of which catered for diverse backgrounds, (for example, the Mosaic organisation, which worked with people with physical disabilities, the Leicester Stroke Club and the East West Community Project);

o    The centre currently brought together people with a range of abilities and different social and ethnic communities and there was concern that this would be lost if the new providers were too specific.  In reply, officers stressed that most organisations provided the required social inclusion, but some people, especially older people, wanted to attend culturally appropriate groups;

o    Officers had visited those affected by the proposed closure of the centre and had identified concerns about alternative venues, (for example, a lack of changing facilities).  Work was underway to identify where support could be given for the development of facilities where needed;

o    Alternative provision previously had been found for older people with mental health issues and the same process would be used for users of the Douglas Bader centre.  It was stressed that not all users required the same provision;

o    Three organisations were available to provide advocacy for individual centre users and their families if needed;

o    If the centre closed, all users would be allocated a dedicated specialist social worker.  Some users had more complex needs, so it could take longer to work through what they wanted and needed, but all users would have this dedicated support for as long as was needed;

o    Once users had found a new setting, a review would be made after a few weeks to ensure that it worked for the user;

o    Support would also  be offered to carers of users of the Douglas Bader centre if the centre closed;

o    The Commission felt that the report did not contain enough information about the people who did not support the closure of the centre, or the support they would be offered; and

o    If the centre closed, existing staff would be offered redeployment.  This could be within Adult Social Care, or across the wider Council.  Alternatively, it was anticipated that some staff could choose to take redundancy.

Philip Parkinson, Interim Chair of Healthwatch Leicester, addressed the Commission at the invitation of the Chair.  He advised the Commission that Healthwatch Leicester supported the closure of the centre on the terms set out in the report and at the meeting.  Current users of the centre were vulnerable people, but Healthwatch was reassured that every effort would be made to make the transition as smooth as possible and that the importance of retaining existing friendship groups was recognised.  The apprehension being experienced by some users was understandable, but it was hoped that, with the support proposed, these users would feel differently in due course.

It was suggested that, if the centre did close, the Commission could receive regular updates on how current users of the centre were being affected by the move to new facilities.  However, it was recognised that this could be difficult to do, as the stages involved for each person were not clearly defined, as each individual would receive a response that was appropriate to their personal needs and wishes.

On behalf of the Commission, the Chair thanked all involved for their work on these proposals. 

RESOLVED:

1)    That the City Mayor be asked to note that the Commission supports Option 2 for the future of the Douglas Bader day care centre, this being closure of the service and the provision of support to service users to source alternative provision; and

2)    That the Director for Care Services and Commissioning (Adult Social Care) be asked to provide the Commission with regular general updates on how current users of the centre adapt to alternative services.