Agenda item

The report informed the Committee on the progress against adult social care key outcomes and targets for the year 2011-12 and gave the position at the end of the annual performance cycle.  The report included:

·         An overview of progress on priority areas within the four national outcome domains;

·         An update on progress against national and local performance indicators;

·         An update on the status of key projects which were underway to achieve the priorities

·         Additional activity data where this was appropriate;

·         Examples of the impact of work on service users and carers in Peterborough

Also included in the report was information around which of the local care homes accepted the local authority fee structure.  A performance report outlined the independent provider homes providing services for older people in the city, their rating and date of last inspection.  All, except two, of the homes did accept placements under the council’s existing fee structure.  This assured the Members that there was no direct link between local authority fee levels and quality.

Observations and questions were raised and discussed including:

·         The Director of Adult Social Services informed members that there was currently a programme in place to replace the current ICT system for Adult Social Care data collection.  The new system would be in place for May 2012.  This would have a particular impact on the self directed support indicator and safeguarding.  The current system was not fit for purpose for data quality on these two areas.

·         Members wanted to know who would pay for the new system.  Funding was being provided from the Councils capital programme, there was an allocation of approximately £400K for the programme. The current ICT system had been in place since 2003.

·         Regarding the indicator showing the proportion of those using social care that have control over their daily life.  32.6% had indicated that they had as much control as they wanted over their daily lives and 44.4% said they had adequate control.  Are you therefore assuming that the remaining 23% who did not respond were happy?  The remaining  23% had answered and the range of answers were that they had some control to only one person who answered that they had no control what so ever.

·         How can you capture the people who did not respond to the survey?  Members were informed that there was always recognition that more work needed to be done to get a higher response rate (althoughit was noted that as a survey response rate, the % was high).  One of the initiatives being looked at was to involve LiNK to visit care home residents to support those who may not have family or friends to help them complete the survey.

·         The random survey was sent to 878 service users.  What percentage of service users did this equate to?  The total number of service users at the time the survey had been completed was around 4000 therefore equating to around 20%.

·         Members were concerned at the timescale of when the care homes had last been inspected in 2008/09.  In view of the recent care home scares they felt this was an unacceptable timeframe.  Members were informed that the Quality Care Commission had downsized and changed its way of working and were no longer running the same inspection regime.  They were now inspecting homes using a risk based approach. Therefore an excellent home may not receive an inspection for a number of years unless a concern was raised. The PCT did carry out annual monitoring visits at care homes that they had contracts with or more regularly if there were particular concerns.  Social care staff visited care homes on a regular basis and would report any concerns.  The Safeguarding Adults Board had asked for a report on the arrangements in Peterborough for care homes and this could be provided to the Committee.

·         Are the four homes that are rated as adequate being monitored?  Focused attention and support was being given to these homes to raise standards.

·         A member of the public addressed the Committee and asked if there was a form of self assessment for care services and if there was a target figure for the prevention of ill health.  Members were informed that there was no self assessment but supported self assessment was in place.  A number of targets were in place  for example, the target that measured how effective the intermediate care services were which covered people who used services that might other wise have gone into hospital e.g. who had a fall or coming out of hospital.  It measured how effective the rehabilitative type services were at getting people back on their feet.  Peterborough performs very well against this indicator.

·         A member of the audience addressed the Committee and asked if the care home ratings could be updated. They also asked if when the new ICT system was implemented that an indicator could be included to measure how people spent their time in care homes and what activities took place.  The ratings could not be updated until the Care Quality Commission brought in a new rating system.  People’s activities and wellbeing was important and there were results included in the survey to cover this.

·         Members suggested that a letter be sent to the Care Quality Commission from the Commission asking that they expedite work on putting in place a new rating inspection system for care homes.

ACTION AGREED

The Commission requested that:

1.      The Safeguarding Adults Board report on the arrangements in Peterborough for care homes to be circulated to members of the Commission.

2.      A letter to be sent to the Care Quality Commission on behalf of the Scrutiny Commission for Health Issues asking that they expeditework on putting a new rating inspection system for care homes in place.