Agenda item

To discuss the feedback received from practitioners during the meetings held week commencing 4 December 2023.

A representative of the Assistant Director - Legal & Democratic Governance advised the Panel that a series of individual feedback sessions were held with practitioners week commencing 4 December 2023.

The following comments were made/issues raised:-

In relation to system training and peer support

·         It was acknowledged that a significant amount of online support was available via the ASC Systems Knowledgebase, and that system support which included telephone support was very helpful, however queried whether one-to-one support or a mentoring service could be provided, where senior practitioners mentored junior/new practitioners.

·         In addition, it was queried whether refresher training or drop-in sessions could be offered to practitioners given the number of changes relating to the system and associated practice since its implementation.

·         It was noted that a monthly newsletter produced by the Adult Social Care Systems Team outlined recent system changes and included a “Did you know” section but noted that the format should always be short and focussed.

·         In response, it was acknowledged that shorter guides and the need for refresher training was an important issue for practitioners to raise to be explored. It was acknowledged that informal mentoring practice had become more challenging during and following the pandemic as more staff worked from home, however peer support and mentoring within teams was a key aspect to having confidence in the system.

·         In relation to the drop in sessions, it was noted that these had been offered for the first year following the system implementation date, however they were considered to be too resource intensive to continue as the same Systems Team were also responsible for responding to IT tickets raised by practitioners, ongoing system developments and associated communications. Instead focussed training was offered in specific areas, at the request of practitioners.

In relation to duplication and efficiency

·         It was noted that system development projects within the Adult Social Care Transformation Programme had already gone someway to addressing the issues.

·         It was however queried whether previous text could be inherited from other fields within the process or from the previous assessment to reduce duplication from form to form and within forms.

·         In response, it was commented that the copy forward functionality was being utilised within the system and decisions had been made on where the copy forward function was relevant and appropriate. It was commented that a review could be undertaken to understand whether copy forward functionality was being maximised.

·         In relation to duplication within forms, it was noted that a number of transformation projects were underway to look at this based on practitioner feedback and practitioners had been involved in these projects.

·         It was queried when these projects had been implemented and in response, it was stated that the significant changes relating to the safeguarding workflow were due to go live the following Monday and that those changes incorporated practitioners feedback around the duplication within the safeguarding and core assessment forms.

·         In relation to the core assessment and support planning forms, Members were advised that this had been redesigned by a group of practitioners and that they were currently testing the final versions so whilst those changes were not yet available, they were imminently due to go live.

·         It was noted that a member of the senior management team had commented that Liquidlogic seemed to be reasonably easy to use at a different local authority whilst practitioners in Stockport had noted that they were taking several days to write up documentation.

·         It was noted that practitioners had advised a new assessment was required for safeguarding when a person moves house and that the whole process had to be repeated. Members acknowledged the importance of environmental context in which safeguarding investigations take place however queried whether having to start again completely was disproportionate. Members queried whether copy forward functionality could be used in this instance.

·         It was queried whether the assessment and support plan forms could be combined, however it was acknowledged by Members that this may not be possible due to statutory constraints. It was acknowledged that Liquidlogic supports compliance with the statutory framework and this is a beneficial feature of the system.

·         In response, it was confirmed that this would not be possible as they are separate statutory requirements with separate statutory functions, and different audience considerations.

In relation to the requirement to submit IT Tickets

·         It was noted that practitioners had reported they were unable to add a persons new address to the system without an IT Ticket.

·         In response, it was confirmed that practitioners did not need to raise an IT Ticket to change a person’s address as this could be done by end users themselves at any point either within a form or within the persons demographic record. The exception to this was noted to be within DoLS processes where the address change represented a change of Managing Authority. As a point of clarity, it was noted that practitioners referenced occasions where addresses are not available to select in the system. In response, it was acknowledged that there are exceptional occasions where addresses were not available because the database of addresses (gazeteer) required update, but this was done periodically by the Systems Team and in this instance it was necessary for a practitioner to inform the Systems Team.

·         It was noted that requesting alterations to the recording system via an IT Ticket including amendments or deletions to safeguarding case notes such as to correct a spelling mistake was felt to be a time consuming process and queried whether this process was necessary.

·         In response, it was commented that an IT ticket system was in place so that practitioners could request a change where they were unable to complete this themselves where such a change required a system administrative role to perform. Similarly in relation to deletion and amendments to case notes and assessment information, once the information had been finalised and signed off, practitioners would require a system administrator to make those changes on their behalf, however there was spell check functionality and an option to save in draft to ensure the information was correct prior to finalising. In addition, it was noted that the assessments were finalised at a point in time and it would not be good practice to edit or delete the information submitted retrospectively. It was confirmed that the current process supported good data governance and the system was fully auditable, and that the IT Ticket process supported good audit procedures as the request for data changes could be tracked and referenced in the system.

·         In relation to adding risk banners, it was noted that this could only be added via an IT ticket.

·         In response, it was commented that there was a policy in place around recording risk as the service was required by law to keep all information up to date and relevant. It was noted that there were two elements of the system where risk could be recorded, one which practitioners and end users were able to add under important information which was viewable on the individual record and one which displayed a risk banner and required an IT ticket to be added. It was commented that the system for adding the risk banner was more rigorous and subject to audit as once that risk was no longer applicable, it would be necessary for this to be removed in order to keep the record and data as accurate as possible and this element did not come with a reminder to review. To keep the system relevant and accurate, the IT ticket submission approach was therefore the best approach.

·         It summary of the reliance on IT ticket submission, it was noted that where this was an exception to request support or a change then this was a reasonable way to request support however it was noted that practitioners referenced some processes in which an IT Ticket was always required as part of the process and noted that this could cause delays.

In relation to general system functionality

·         In relation to a query around auto-save functionality, it was confirmed that the system did offer auto-save functionality and was a fundamental part of the suppliers software to ensure that data was not lost.

·         In relation to concerns around the maximum file size practitioners were able to upload to the system, it was commented that there was a file size limit to the documents that could be attached to the system, however it was possible for Stockport to increase the maximum file size locally which had been done on a number of occasions.

·         In relation to recording a safeguarding potential perpetrator, it was noted that this was not easy to add to the system. In response, it was commented that it was possible to record the person alleged to be the cause of the risk in a number of ways – either referencing their record in the system or adding in as free text. It was noted that there was a statutory requirement to record and report this information and so this information is available to record in the system.

·         In relation to concerns around the open safeguarding enquiry badge not always being viewable, it was commented that when a safeguarding concern was raised but did not progress to an enquiry, there would be no safeguarding badge in place as the enquiry had not progressed. Similarly, if the safeguarding enquiry had been completed and closed, there would be no badge in place as the system was designed to show active, current cases. It was commented that whilst the badge would be removed, the history would be retained by the system and was available to see from a specific area of the system. It was noted that a badge also would not exist if the safeguarding activity was from the legacy system as the data between systems was fundamentally different. It was noted however that whilst legacy safeguarding data had been migrated, it was saved in a different part of the system which was the same as other local authority implementations.

·         It was noted that practitioners were unable to password protect the PDF format documents generated by the system and as a result were required to copy the contents of the document into a word document in order for them to password protect prior to emailing and queried whether this process could be streamlined.

·         In response, it was stated that the default output from the system was as a PDF document which required an adobe licence in order to password protect and it was commented that, as every end user of the system across both children’s and adults services would require an adobe licence, there would be a significant cost implication. It was also noted that password protecting documents when emailing was part of a wider corporate policy to keep data secure. It was however clarified that it is possible to open a PDF in a Word document where password protect functionality exists.

·         It was queried whether it would be possible to link similar cases where there was a common factor such the environment in a tenancy arrangement.

·         In response it was commented that it was not possible to link cases due to data protection considerations. It was noted that the request may relate to where a visit had been undertaken pertaining to multiple people within an LD tenancy and whether there was one way of recording the conversation and effectively cascading the information to separate records as this functionality existed within the children’s system, however unfortunately the functionality was not available in the adults system.

·         In relation to DoLS, it was questioned whether the system could automatically produce paperwork for legal processes and court reports.

·         In response it was noted that some legal forms and reports are required to be produced on templates that sit outside of the system and produced by other bodies such as the Office of Public Guardian. These could not be produced by the system.

In relation to system processes

·         It was queried whether it would be possible to explore the option of admin staff to support practitioners in the completion of some of the processes.

·         In response, it was commented that certain parts of the process were the responsibility of specific professionals and was a requirement of a professional registration in order to complete. It was however noted that the transformation projects focussing on system improvements involve practitioners and are based on practitioner feedback about processes and areas they feel require further development.

·         It was queried if user testing was used prior to the implementation of system changes or new processes.

·         In response, it was confirmed that user testing was used relating to significant changes to the system and had been standard practice since the implementation of the system, however this was not practical from an operational perspective for minor changes.

·         In relation to the brokerage process, it was noted that a change in date required the information to be re-entered and queried whether the process could be streamlined.

·         In response, it was stated that certain elements relating to services had to be re-entered as the service would only pay for the service from the time at which it started and because the system was linked to the finance system, it was necessary for the information to be correct for both payment and charging purposes. However, in terms of the brokerage process, it was in local gift to refine and there were plans in place to streamline the process with both sides of the team.

·         In relation to a query around recording a Section 42 enquiry where a person has deceased, it was commented that section 42 enquiries are to support protection of people from abuse and the legal framework does not support progression where that person has deceased. It was however noted that whilst the safeguarding enquiry would come to an end, any necessary actions would continue to be followed up via other processes. The system correctly follows the legislative framework and statutory reporting requirements in this scenario.

·         It was noted that it was important for the service to consult service users to understand if the completion of forms was in any way inhibiting the meetings between social workers and their clients.

·         In response, it was commented that the Making It Real Board has been established which included people with lived experience and the proposal going forwards was to consult the Board on any significant changes.

In concluding

·         It was commented that the Panel wanted to ensure that the service minimised the time social workers spent at their computers as much as practicably possible in order to increase the time they had available to spend with residents.

·         It was suggested that a recommendation for the final report include that the Adult Social Care & Health Scrutiny Committee received an update on the transformation programme work relating to the system in a set time period.