Issue - meetings

To consider a joint report of the Director of Adult Social Care and Deputy Director of Public Health.

The First Update Portfolio Performance and Resource Reports (PPRRs) for the Adult Social Care and Health Portfolios are presented for consideration by the Committee. These provide a summary of progress in delivering the portfolio priorities, reform programme and other key projects in the first quarter of the year (April to June). They include forecast performance and financial data (where this is available) for the Portfolios, along with an update on the portfolio savings programmes.

The Scrutiny Committee is asked to:

·         Consider the First Update Portfolio Performance and Resource Reports;  

·         Review the progress against delivering key projects, priority outcomes, targets and budgets for 2018/19;

·         Highlight key areas of and responsibility for taking forward corrective action to address any performance or resource issues;

·         Highlight any significant issues or changes to be fed back to the Cabinet alongside the Corporate Performance and Resource Report;

·         Identify how areas of strong performance and good practice can be shared in other services.

Officer contact: Peter Owston / Paul Graham,  0161 474 3274 / 4674, peter.owston@stockport.gov.uk / paul.graham@stocckport.gov.uk

The Cabinet Members for Adult Social Care and for Health submitted the Annual Portfolio Performance and Resources Reports (copies of which had been circulated) summarising progress in delivering priorities, reform programme and other key projects and outturn positions for the Adult Social Care and Health portfolios at the end of the first quarter of 2018/19.

Adult Social Care

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·         Clarification was sought on the timescale for extending social care operating hours. In response it was stated that discussions were ongoing with unions but it was hoped that the service would begin from 1 September 2018 based on staff who had volunteered for new working patterns. Concern was expressed about the time take to resolve disagreements with Trade Unions. In response it was stated that the aim was to implement a model of care that staff were also supportive of. Working with the Union a number of amendments had been made to the model to address their concerns.

·         In relation to temporary residential placements being made permanent it was anticipated that performance would return to target. It was also stated that in cases where places were being made having been in acute care it was not always desirable to make these permanent.

·         Did retirement housing developments have an effect on deferring of demand for residential care? In response it was stated that the impact was difficult to assess but ensuring a range of options for over 65s was welcomed.

·         Clarification was sought on whether proportionately more patients were delayed in Manchester hospitals than Stepping Hill. In response the challenges of data collection were emphasised but given the lesser usage of hospitals other than Stepping Hill delays for these small numbers had a disproportionate impact on statistics.

·         Clarification was sought on the counting of domestic abuse re-victimisation. In response it was stated that the Police were increasingly recording such incidents as crimes which had the effect of increasing the figures for such incidents although there was actually a reduction overall.

·         Further information was requested in relation to the CQC Ratings for nursing care and the Council’s target. In response it was acknowledged that the target was challenging. There was often a time delay in the CQC Rating process so that improvements were not reflected as speedily. Given the smaller bed base the Council was better able to provide support to providers compared to those in the residential care sector. If the Council chose not to commission from poor performing providers this would also effect proportion of beds available and performance target.

·         Disappointment was expressed that the Governments Green Paper on social care funding had again been delayed. It was stated that the proposals would only relate to older people but adult social care served a wider cohort.

·         Clarity was sought in relation to the role of the Ambulance Services and the provision of wrap-around care. In response it was stated that the report made reference to the ‘Pathfinder’ scheme that allowed ambulance crews to make an assessment of need for hospital or refer to other services such as Mastercall. This work was now linked into the general crisis care team to help assist keep people at home.

Health

The following comments were made/ issues raised:

·         The positive work of local GPs was discussed, including the provision of allotments and other similar preventative and wellbeing iniatives. The recent awarding of Gold Awards to four practices in Stockport for Bowel Cancer Screening was welcomed and the benefit of practices sharing good practice emphasised.

·         Clarification was sought on whether there remained any plans for an Accountable Care Organisation in Stockport or Greater Manchester. In response it was stated that partners locally had abandoned such plans and moved ahead with a contractual alliance model. Any change in that position would be subject to formal NHS consultation processes.

·         Would the Heatons Placed-Based integration model be adopted elsewhwere in the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4