Agenda item

The Strategic Director, Adult Social Care submits a report that provides the Commission with an update on the quality of care across the services provided by the independent sector organisations, on behalf of the Council, for a range of vulnerable adults for 2015. The Commission is asked to note the content of the report and comment as it sees fit.

The Strategic Director, Adult Social Care submitted a report that provided the Commission with an update on the quality of care services provided by the independent sector organisations on behalf of the council for a range of vulnerable adults for 2015.

The Deputy City Mayor introduced the report explaining that this was a supplement to the quality assurance carried out by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and was part of the council’s manifesto pledge to more closely monitor what was happening in care services.

During the ensuing discussion on the report, a number of comments and queries were raised including the following:

·      It was noted that the providers were mostly compliant or good; was any support given to help providers achieve an excellent rating?

Officers explained that the Assurance Framework was about continuous improvement and examples of good practice were shared amongst contracted providers. The innovative way that services were being delivered in care homes were taken into account when an excellent rating was granted. Whilst the council encouraged providers to achieve higher ratings in their assessments, it does not stipulate what they should be.

·      It was noted that some of the care homes had inspections outstanding. The Head of Contracts and Assurance confirmed that since the time of writing the report, all those outstanding inspections had commenced.

·      In respect of the 12% of providers who were judged to be non-compliant, Members heard that the providers were given an action plan for completion within a set timeframe. If those actions were not completed, the council would take appropriate action. In response to a query, the Deputy City Mayor stated that the council were not adverse to taking final action and removing the contract from the provider where appropriate.

·      Officers were asked whether the council drew up the contracts for the providers; they confirmed that they did and that they worked with providers on the quality assurance framework.

·      A Member questioned whether providers were expected to submit a compliance report in between visits. Members heard that an annual report was produced in conjunction with the Provider (QAF report); performance was monitored on an ongoing basis and the council acted on intelligence received. The Member expressed a view that the provider should submit a report every six months.

·      Members questioned whether all care homes were currently compliant. The Head of Contracts and Assurance responded that ratings on some homes were still outstanding, but every provider would have a quality assurance rating by the end of the year. The Deputy City Mayor stated that one non-compliant provider was one too many; however things sometimes went wrong and there was a need to understand this and take very prompt action.  The report set out robust procedures to do so when appropriate.

·      In response to a question, the Deputy City Mayor stated that they had not looked at whether there was any correlation between homes that were non-compliant and wages paid to staff. This was an area that Scrutiny might wish to look at. 

·      David Henson, Healthwatch, reported that the organisation had been involved in Quality Assurance visits and he believed that the council’s procedures were very thorough. He did however have some concerns with the CQC and had arranged to meet with them in September. It was agreed that Mr Henson would share the outcome of that meeting with the Commission and also meet up with the Chair separately.

·      Members asked how the information in the report was being communicated to members of the public. The Deputy City Mayor responded that the report was in the public domain which was a positive step forward. He had given some thought to the possibility of using something similar to ‘Trip Advisor’ for people to leave or read reviews.

·      It was noted that some local authorities had an incentive scheme for providers and further information on this, in the form of a briefing note was requested.

·      A Member referred to a paragraph in the report which stated that it wasn’t always possible to speak to service users when visiting their home because officers had not fully prepared themselves to accommodate language and communication needs.  The Head of Quality and Assurance explained that there had been occasions when people did not have the appropriate skills to engage with those service users who had complex communication needs, but work was ongoing to address this.

AGREED:

that the report be noted and the Commission’s comments be forwarded to the Executive.