Agenda item

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

The report sets out the draft 2022/23 Portfolio Agreement for the Health and Adult Social Care Portfolio, the portfolio priorities, delivery plans and budgets for the current year, and will be presented to Cabinet for approval on 20 September.

The Scrutiny Committee is asked to comment on and note the report.

Officer contacts: Peter Owston on 0161 474 3274 or email: peter.owston@stockport.gov.uk and Paul Graham on 0161 474 4674 or email: paul.graham@stockport.gov.uk

The Director of Public Health and Interim Director of Adult Social Care submitted a joint report (copies of which had been circulated) outlining the draft 2022/23 Portfolio Agreement for the Health and Adult Social Care Portfolio, the portfolio priorities, delivery plans and budgets for the current year.

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

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

·         Members welcomed the focus on prevention and early help and queried how this would be measured.

·         It was suggested that the measures be revised to be reflective of quantifiable data rather than aspirations of improving health outcomes.

·         In relation to the percentage of residents in Stockport who have depression or generalised anxiety disorders, it was queried what interventions the council takes with partners to affect those numbers and as a result, what were the aspirations.

·         In response it was stated that there was step change in the data in the number of people experiencing anxiety, broadly related to the pandemic, which there was no expectation that this would rapidly decline given the current context. Whilst it was expected that this proportion would remain relatively high, of those people experiencing high levels of anxiety there were a number of routes which people were able to explore with their GP or other health professionals including the IAP service. The IAP service was one of the service options, alongside other examples such as Living Life to the Full which was an online, self-help platform for people to receive support with their anxiety and medication options. It was reported that IAP was a national indicator which allowed comparison nationally with other Local Authorities, however all these options would be measured as part of the mental health programme.

·         Members raised concerns in relation to the high number of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding referrals awaiting assessment and queried the impact on residents of the implementation of the Liberty Protection Safeguard.

·         In response, Members were advised that the Liberty Protection Safeguard was a change in legislation which would significantly change the approach to how the council determined who was at risk of being deprived of their liberty, however the council were awaiting confirmation of when this change would be implemented. It was recognised that the number of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding referrals awaiting assessment was high and the corporate risk register identified the number of people who had been triaged, however the workforce challenges had meant that their assessment had not been completed.

·         In respect of the workforce challenges, it was queried whether the issues were a result of a number of unfilled vacancies.

·         In response it was stated that Stockport was in a similar position to many other Local Authorities in that there was national issue around appropriately trained staff required to complete the work and there had been an increase in the demand on Adult Social Care which had resulted in increased pressure on the service.

·         Members welcomed the priority to address health inequalities in the Borough which underpinned a number of the measures.

·         In response it was reported that when considering changes to the healthy life expectancy there was no expectation to see large changes in the short-term as this was a long-term change which would take years to affect and in the immediate, the service was exploring a way to use proxy measures to measure progress.

·         In relation to women’s health screening, Members noted the increase in the uptake rates, however noted that more work could be done around breast cancer screenings.

·         In response, Members were advised that screening was a good example of how the service can measure individual locality figures to invest more targeted work where it was required. Whilst cervical cancer screening uptake figures had increased, it was recognised that work was required to increase the figures around breast cancer screening and work was ongoing to promote knowledge and uptake.

·         Members noted that a number of the early indicators were lower than expected, however recognised the impact of the wider context around the pandemic and cost of living.

·         In relation to long Covid, Members queried the support available to residents.

·         In response it was stated that there was an offer around long Covid which encapsulated a number of associated conditions which residents could self-refer or receive a referral through their GP to receive support through the appropriate interventions

·         In relation to the Stockport Support Hub and radically digital, Members commented on the importance social interaction and being connected.

·         In response, Members were advised that the Stockport Support Hub offered both a virtual and a physical offer for residents.

·         Members welcomed the linkages between public health and clear air as one of the determinants of health, however raised concerns in relation to the delays of a number of these programmes such as the Clean Air Plan. It was queried whether the impact of these delays on people’s health could be quantified.

·         In response it was stated that there were some good modelling around attributable risks such as the impact of poor air quality and how this can be apportioned to different health outcomes. In respect of a specific intervention such as the Clean Air Plan and the likely impact, there would be a way to estimate this through the UK Health Security Agency.