Issue - meetings

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

The Mid-Year Portfolio Performance and Resource Report (PPRR) for the Health and Adult Social Care Portfolio is presented to Members for consideration. The report focuses on highlights and exceptions in relation to delivering the portfolio priorities since the Agreement was drafted and includes forecast performance and financial data (where this is available) for the Portfolio, along with an update on the portfolio savings programme.

The Scrutiny Committee is recommended to:-

(a)          Consider the Mid-Year Portfolio Performance and Resource Report;

(b)          Review the progress against delivering key projects, priority outcomes, targets and budgets for 2023/24;

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

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

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

Officer contact: Gaynor Ward on 0161 474 3186 or email: gaynor.ward@stockport.gov.uk and Paul Graham by email: paul.graham@stockport.gov.uk

The Director of Adult Social Care and the Director of Public Health submitted a joint report (copies of which had been circulated) presenting the Mid-Year Portfolio Performance and Resource Report (PPRR) for the Health and Adult Social Care Portfolio. The report focussed on highlights and exceptions in relation to delivering the portfolio priorities since the Agreement was drafted and included forecast performance and financial data, where available, for the Portfolio, along with an update on the portfolio savings programme.

The Cabinet Member for Health & Adult Social Care (Councillor Keith Holloway) attended the meeting to respond to questions from the Scrutiny Committee.

The following comments were made/ issues raised:-

·         In relation to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, Members welcomed the improvements in the number of high and medium priority referrals awaiting assessment. However, queried whether changing individual categorisations had impacted on the reduction and whether a forecast of 261 was too high for a green RAG status.

·         In response, it was stated that the figure of 261 formed part of the 1,300 total figure of referrals awaiting assessment. It was stated that the measure had been assigned a green status as the cases had now been allocated to the commissioned service and showing improvements. It was recognised that the measure could equally be amber as the service was on a journey, however the resource was in place to reduce the significant backlog.

·         It was suggested that there would be merit in changing the measure to amber to demonstrate that improvement journey.

·         In relation to a previous request made by the Committee that Greater Manchester ICS senior colleagues be invited to a future meeting, it was queried whether this had been incorporated within the work programme.

·         In response, it was noted that it was anticipated that this request could be incorporated under the Health & Wellbeing Board and One Stockport Health & Care Locality Board – roles, responsibilities and relationship item scheduled for the February meeting of the Committee and officers were in communication with Manchester ICS colleagues.

·         Members welcomed the new breast screening unit with improved access as the improvements would encourage uptake and requested additional information around the recruitment of the two temporary community cancer project workers.

·         In response, it was stated that the new mobile breast screening unit had a lift and work was ongoing to identify a suitable site for a fixed unit to further increase uptake. In relation to the two temporary community cancer project workers, it was stated that a written update would be circulated to the Committee.

·         In relation to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, it was queried whether the initial assessment or part of the assessment could be re-used to support the new assessment.

·         In response, it was stated that there were timescales on the medical part of the assessment, however parts could be re-used and it was classed as best practice to consider the previous assessment, noting that if the assessment had been more than a year ago the medical assessment would need to be redone.

·         Members welcomed the improvement in relation to the number of people undertaking the National Diabetes Prevention Programme as it was an area that could deliver better health outcomes.

·         Concerns were raised in relation to premature mortality rates due to all-cause in most deprived quintile and the lack of benchmarking data.

·         In response, it was stated that there had been a small increase on the mortality rate from two years previous at 621.5 and the measure had been listed as a contextual inequality indicator for the purpose of the report, however additional trend data was available and would be shared with Members of the Committee.

·         In relation to the number of people completing a weight management intervention programme, it was noted that there had been 227 referrals, however 0 completions and queried whether this was the right approach.

·         In response, it was commented that the measure was misleading as it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5