MEMORANDUMDate: April 2009

To:All Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee
AllChief Officers
cc: All officers named for 'actions'
Democratic Services / From:COUNTY SECRETARY'S
DEPARTMENT
Ask for:Elaine Shell
Ext:25565
Minicom:6611

OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

23 APRIL 2009

MINUTES

ATTENDANCE

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

N K Brook,M Downing,S B A Giles-Medhurst, B N W Hammond, D Hewitt (Substitute for

L Spencer), J T Metcalf (Vice-Chairman), M D R Muir, E T Roach (Substitute for P A Ruffles), A M R Searing (Chairman)

*T C Heritage

*Parent Governor Representatives

* N Betteley, *S Milligan, *D Thompson

*Church Representatives

* P Browning (Substitute for J Reynolds)

* denotes members appointed for education scrutiny matters only.

Also present: K F Emsall (Executive Member, Education and Culture)

MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12 February 2009 were confirmed as a correct record.

PART 1 ('OPEN') BUSINESS

1. / HOME CARE CONTRACTING: UPDATE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF NOEW CARE CONTRACTS / Action
[Officer Contact: Tom Hawkyard, Tel: 01992 555300]
1.1 / Mark Lobban, Assistant Director Community Commissioning, Adult Care Services provided members with an oral report on the new home care block contracts, the progress being made on their implementation, and on the Panorama Programme on the home care service aired the previous week.
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15
1.16
1.17
1.18
1.19
1.20
1.21 / In summary:-
There were seven home care block providers, other than Goldsborough who were a county-wide contractor, these were:-
  • Careforce
  • Care UK
  • Plan Personnel
  • Caring Hands
  • Supporta Care
  • CCS
  • Westminster Care
Collectively, these provided services for 3314 service users. Significant improvements had been identified across the market place over the last 12 months; in March 2009 forty complaints had been raised, representing a low proportion of the total number of users and a huge reduction in the number of complaints received over the preceding 12 month period.
Whilst there had been concerns raised about other providers, the main focus of the topic group meeting earlier in the year to review homecare contracts was on two providers; Supporta Care and Care UK. Since that group had concluded their work, the Adult Care and Health Panel had received regular progress reports and had requested a final report on Care UK.
Care UK
A number of serious concerns had been raised about Care UK. Notice of the Council’s intent to terminate their contract had been given on 28 January 2009. Emergency contract regulations, overseen by the County Council’s legal team, had been employed to award new contracts to transfer work away from Care UK. Criterion applied for those tendering for the new contracts had included a CSCI (Commission for Social Care Inspection) rating of 2 stars (a ‘good’ rating); sufficient financial viability; sufficient management structure; and that they were already an established provider in the area. Sage Care and Care By Us were subsequently awarded the contracts.
The Contracts Unit had worked with area teams, Care UK and the two incoming providers to transfer service users as smoothly as possible; transfer of all (354) service users had been completed by 30 March 2009, within 2 months and a month ahead of target; staff carers had been transferred to provide continuity of care; and a telephone helpline had been set up to which 10 calls were received in the first week with no further calls being received thereafter.
Quality Monitoring Officers (who went out to speak with individual service users) had reported that they had no concerns with the 2 new providers.
A significant amount of money had been held back from Care UK’s final invoice to help offset the costs incurred by the Council in managing the transfer.
(Subsequent Note: The Home Care report being presented to the Adult Care and Health Panel on 20 May 2009 advises that “£143K has been claimed back from Care UK to cover the Council’s costs, which includes costs for officer time in helping with the transfer of service users to the two new providers.”)
Supporta Care
There were initial problems with this provider. Some concerns still remained with 18 complaints having been recorded in March 2009. These would be monitored. The Contracts Unit were working with them and the Head of the Unit had assured the Assistant Director Community Commissioning that the organisation had ‘turned themselves around’.
Supporta Care had now been awarded a 2 star rating (‘good’ rating) by CSCI.
Other Contractors
Careforce
One complaint had been recorded in March 2009. The organisation was regarded as very stable; they had improved their recruitment and the new manager in post was well regarded by users, carers and local teams.
Plan Personnel
Whilst not the main focus of concern last year, some concerns remained. In accordance with procedures, their contract had been suspended in September 2008 and no further work had been placed with them following the organisation being awarded a CSCI rating of zero stars. The Contracts Unit were working closely with them to resolve these concerns; a ‘service improvement plan’ had been agreed and was being implemented ahead of schedule.
CCS
Some areas had been identified for improvement. The organisation had been purchased by another provider with a very good track record and they were working to implement the agreed ‘service improvement plan’. The Head of the Contracts Unit had reported no serious concerns with this provider.
Westminster Care
Westminster Care had received four complaints in March 2009. This organisation was regarded as ‘low risk’ and there were no serious concerns with them.
Goldsborough
Focus had been on the new contracts and on block contracts. Going forward, reports would include all home care service providers, including Goldsborough, a county-wide provider.
Panorama Programme on Home Care
Prior to the programme being aired, the complaints section had sent out a reminder to all parts of the organisation to log any calls (and group them together) received as a result of the focus of that programme. Three calls had come into the Department, all of which had been directed to the finance section as they all related to charging. No calls had come into the area teams or the Contracts Unit.
Following the programme the Department had commissioned a piece of work to review current practice in terms of the quality monitoring of home care services and to identify areas where this could be improved (an ‘end-to-end’ process review). Members were assured that this would include reviewing mechanisms for reaching those complaints which were not formally registered/recorded by service users/carers, the availability of information advising users/carers how to register complaints, electronic quality monitoring (how to make the best use of it), and exploring whether and how friends, relatives, district nurses and the voluntary sector might be utilised as a source of information. It was noted that service providers were now required to report complaints received by them to the ACS Department.
It was agreed that monthly statistics on the number of concerns/complaints raised regarding home care/home care services across the County would be made available to members of the Committee. The bi-annual complaints reports, which would seek to compare the data with expected levels of complaints and to identify trends etc, would also be circulated to committee members. Members noted that complaint data would also be made available on Connect.
The programme had also highlighted the lack of training for home care staff. Members were pleased to hear that the Department were confident that they were doing all they could, within existing resources, to ensure that the care workforce was properly trained; considerable resources were provided to private providers, particularly for training around ‘enablement’ and ‘dementia’; as part of the monitoring contract management, 1 and 2 day audits had a huge focus on training; and Quality Monitoring Officers checked training records on their visits to provider establishments. Monitoring workforce training and development was and would continue to be an ongoing priority.
Further reports on the home care service would be presented to the Adult Care and Health Panel in due course.
1.22 / Conclusion
The Committee :-
1.Received the report
2.Requested that members receive, on an ongoing basis,:-
(i)A monthly report providing statistics on the number of concerns/complaints raised regarding home care/home care services across the County
(ii)A copy of the bi-annual complaints report, prepared by the Adult Care Services Department, on the home care service. / Tom Hawkyard/Mark Lobban/
Elaine Shell
2. / SCRUTINY RECOMMENDATIONS UPDATE
[Officer Contact: Tom Hawkyard, Tel: 01992 555300]
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5 / The Committee received a progress report on action taken on recommendations arising from the work of their topic groups and from one–off scrutinies commissioned by the Committee and undertaken since their last meeting.
The report set out the recommendations made by the individual topic groups and the Executive Members’ responses to these recommendations (due 2 months after publication of the respective topic group report), where these were available.
The minutes of the February and March 2009 meetings of the Review of Recommendations Topic Group, the topic group responsible for monitoring and reviewing the implementation of all topic group recommendations and for subsequently ‘signing them off’, were also noted. (Note: The minutes of the meeting of the Review of Recommendations Topic Group held in March 2009 were tabled. Further copies are available from Elaine Shell, Assistant Head of Member Services, telephone 01992 555565, email: ).
During the course of their discussions, members noted the following points:-
  • Herts Highways (Minutes of the Review of Recommendations Topic Group, March 2009, pages 7 and 8):- the wording of the minute reflected the discussion at the meeting; it was recognised that whilst the Passenger Transport Unit (PTU) could provide a lot of information to Joint Member Panels (JMPs), the JMPs would not necessarily wish to receive it all. The JMPs would, therefore, be reminded that they should request information from the PTU on those areas of specific interest to them. Officers were asked to ensure that members of all JMPs were advised of the expansion of their terms of reference.
  • The Committee requested that the Head of Scrutiny revisit, with the respective Executive Member, the text of the response given to Planning Enforcement Topic Group’s recommendations. Members also noted that the Development and Control Committee had not received a copy of the Executive Member’s response to the Planning Enforcement Topic Group’s recommendations at their last meeting and requested that members of that committee receive a copy of it as soon as practical.
  • St Albans Fire Station (Minutes of the Review of Recommendations Topic Group, March 2009, pages 4 and 5):- the Head of Scrutiny agreed to establish how costs were being met and the extent of the Council’s liability in this matter; committee members would be advised accordingly.
  • Safeguarding Children: Road safety:- The Head of Scrutiny would establish whether the remit/work of the Hertfordshire Safeguarding Children’s Board included road safety issues.
  • Domestic Violence:- Officers would take forward members’ suggestion that they ascertain why work with some district LSPs had been more successful than others ahead of the Review of Recommendations Topic Group meeting in September 2009 (the meeting at which action taken on the Topic Group’s recommendations would be considered).
  • The processes and procedures for the Review of Recommendations Topic Group were still being refined to make them more streamlined and robust.
All members of the Committee were reminded that they were welcome to attend any/all meeting/s of the Review of Recommendations Topic Group. / Rob Smith
Adrian Service
Tom Hawkyard/
Elaine Shell
Tom Hawkyard/
Elaine Shell
Natalie Rotherham/Nicola Hayden
2.6 / Conclusion
The Committee received the report.
3. / SCRUTINY WORK PROGRAMME
[Officer Contact: Tom Hawkyard, Tel: 01992 555300]
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4 / Consideration was given to a report outlining a proposed work programme for the Committee for September 2009 – March 2011.
The Committee were advised that The Crime and Disorder (Overview and Scrutiny) Regulations 2009, due to come into force on 30 April 2009, stated that “A crime and disorder committee shall meet to review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge by the responsible authorities of their crime and disorder functions as the committee considers appropriate but no less than once in every twelve month period.” More detailed information would be presented to the Committee at their next meeting; this scrutiny would need to be reflected in the Committee’s future work programme.
Members were invited to contact Tom Hawkyard, Head of Scrutiny (telephone 01992 555300 email: ) with any further suggestions for items for inclusion in the work programme.
It was agreed that a briefing note on business continuity planning be circulated to all members of the Committee. / All Members to note
Tom Hawkyard/
Elaine Shell
3.5 / Conclusion
The Committee:-
  1. Noted that The Crime and Disorder (Overview and Scrutiny) Regulations 2009, due to come into force on 30 April 2009, stated that “A crime and disorder committee shall meet to review or scrutinise decisions made, or other action taken, in connection with the discharge by the responsible authorities of their crime and disorder functions as the committee considers appropriate but no less than once in every twelve month period” and agreed that this scrutiny be included in their future work programme
  1. Endorsed the proposed work programme for the period September 2009 – March 2011, as attached as Appendix 1 to the report and as amended by 1. above
3. Agreed that the Committee should be invitedto consider the proposed work programme at their meeting in the new County Council on 1 July 2009. / Tom Hawkyard/
Natalie Rotherham/Elaine Shell to note all

ANDREW LAYCOCK

COUNTY SECRETARY

1