Agenda item

Briefing Note of the Director of Adult Services

The Scrutiny Board considered a briefing note of the Director of Adult Services which informed of the recommendations arising from the Adult Social Care Peer Challenge which took place from 23^rd to 25^th February, 2016 and detailed the actions to be progressed to address the issues raised. A copy of the feedback letter from Keith Skerman, who led the Peer team; their feedback presentation; and the Adult Social Care Action Plan in response were set out at appendices to the briefing note. Councillor Abbott, Cabinet Member for Adult Services attended the meeting for the consideration of this item. 

The briefing note indicated that the Peer Challenge was part of the sector led improvement approach across Adult Social Care and provided an opportunity to have an objective assessment of how well a service was performing in a specified area, highlighting any areas for improvement.

Prior to the review, a case file audit of 20 social work cases was undertaken by two principal social workers. The overarching question which formed the basis of the challenge was: ‘How equipped is Coventry City Council to enable people who come into contact with Adult Social Care to make active choices about how outcomes are met.’ In examining this question the Peer Challenge focused on four key lines of enquiry: the approach to both new and existing customers; the approach to workforce development; and commissioning and financial management processes.

The Peer Challenge summary highlighted that performance was being maintained despite significant financial reductions. Examples of innovative service delivery were identified and these along with a ‘can-do’ attitude within the directorate leadership and workforce and positive relationships with health partners and other stakeholders was seen as a good foundation for further improvement.

As anticipated the team identified that progress had not been made in an evidential way when delivering personalised support for Coventry residents. There was an acknowledgement that the Coventry and Rugby CCG had continued to use the Better Care Fund to protect Adult Social Care which had increased in 2016/17 but that the lack of a single plan for the health and social care system could be a barrier to progress.

The findings focused significant effort on the workforce, the processes used to support Adult Social Care, and the way the market was engaged to support the delivery of the changes required to make the delivery of personalisation more of a reality for Coventry residents.

The briefing note highlighted the seven recommendations from the Peer Review Team along with responses from the Directorate. In relation to Safeguarding and to ensure that a personalised approach was being taken in this area, a separate action plan was in place. It was intended that this work would include an independent evaluation of progress in this area later in 2016. All actions set out in the briefing note were included in the action plan which would be used by Adult Social Care as a basis for delivering and measuring progress. The action plan covered the following five areas in which progress would be made: vision and strategy; embedding personalisation in practice; improving the experience of the customer; embedding personalisation in process; and robust financial planning and programme management.   

The Board questioned the officer on a number of issues and responses were provided. Matters raised included:

·  Details of the Peer Review Team and any financial implications for the City Council

·  Following the challenge, what would be the benefits for Coventry residents

·  Whether officers had been provided with any further details other than what was set out in the feedback presentation

·  A concern that in the feedback weaknesses were highlighted as strengths which undermined the report, potentially meaning the review was not as robust as it could have been

·  A concern that no feedback had been given to the key focus groups including Health watch

·  A concern about the quality of  the evaluative comments including a lack of detail/ evidence

·  A request for the Board to have the opportunity to consider the independent evaluation of the progress being made in safeguarding

·  Whether the observations and findings would be relevant to all local authorities across the country

·  Further details about proposals for the use of new technology and an acknowledgement of the need for employees to be receptive to new ways of working

·  A comparison of the safeguarding figures with neighbouring local authorities

·  The involvement of Adult Social Care with the Sustainability and Transformation Plan and the current position of the Better Care Fund

·  In relation to safeguarding, a concern about the welfare of carers

·  Clarification that the concerns of the Board regarding the findings of the Peer Review Challenge would be reported back to the Peer Review Team and to the West Midlands Association of Directors of Adult Social Care.      

The Board also considered that appointment of a member to sit on the Personalisation Reference Group.

RESOLVED that:

(1) The outcome of the Adult Social Care Peer Challenge undertaken between 23^rd and 25th February, 2016 and the actions being progressed as a result be noted.

(2) Councillor Clifford be appointed to serve on the Personalisation Reference Group which will include voluntary sector and user representatives.

(3) The Chair, Councillor Gannon to liaise with Councillor Abbott, Cabinet Member for Adult Services and Pete Fahy, Director of Adult Services to provide feedback from the Scrutiny Board on the Peer Review report for the Peer Review Team and the West Midlands Association of Director of Adult Social Services (ADASS).

(4) A further report on progress with implementing the action plan be submitted to a future meeting of the Board following Keith Skerman’s visit in October.

(5) A report on the independent evaluation of the progress being made in respect of safeguarding ensuring that a personalised approach is being taken in this area be submitted to a future meeting of the Board.