Agenda item

A report was provided Members with an update on the council’s Adults Health and Wellbeing Transformation Programme.  A presentation was provided at the meeting and covered the following aspects of the programme:

a)    Operational, governance and resources arrangements:

b)    The alternative care model for Day Opportunities.

It was explained that there was a need to review the customer journey to work on prevention and be able to make longer term savings.  In terms of capacity, it was felt that more was needed and therefore specific expertise had been brought in to undertake this.  It was stated that the product would be further developed over future months.

Members heard how the Placement Strategy would result in investment into other services.  It was about reducing enablement and transitioning people to a more improved level, intervening at different times and therefore assisting demand management.  It was reported that there had been a positive response as well as it being better financially.

Rapid Improvement Projects  - Members were updated that these projects covered the following areas;

·         Safeguarding 

·         Occupational Therapy

·         Direct Payments

·         Section 117 and CHC Spend

·         DoLS

·         Quality Assurance

Day Opportunities - Concerns were raised around how a quality service could be delivered with less money.  Members were informed that a debate was taking place in Doncaster and at a national level about what the right level of funding looked like at a time when demand was rising and some services were oversubscribing.  It was added that developments with day centres were a positive example of what could be achieved.

Members were assured that there was a focus on investment as well as on the improvement of quality.  Members recognised that steps were still being taken to consider different models and business needs.

Members were told that when reviewing services, a number of duplications were found which had resulted in having a negative impact on customer quality.  It was recognised that there was a funding deficit and improvements had been made within services with an aim to work more on preventative measures. 

Members were informed that expectations had been broadened and feedback was indicating that more people were feeling more supported within their communities.  A Member expressed the opinion that based on their personal experiences it was too early to see if the changed offer was providing a better outcome.

It was outlined using feedback from Mexborough Day Centre that clients were better linked into the community and had benefited from an intergenerational approach.  Other positive examples included from the Bullcroft Memorial Hall in Carcroft, where clients had benefited from the reduction of time and money spent on transport and had become more independent as a result of the close location of the centre.  A Member of the Panel also mentioned how a user who was now attending Rossington Day Centre, had expressed their contentment and looked forward to the new activities at the centre.

Members heard that there facilities and services needed to be utilised more and made more sustainable.

Transport - Members were informed that consideration was being given to how transport could be made more efficient.  Concern was raised that costs should not be passed on if the numbers of users reduced.

A Member conveyed how in their own ward, transport costs had proved too expensive when using a local charity that supported older people.  It was explained that as a result, the Town Council was now using taxis to access the same service as a cheaper form of transport.  Members were informed that social isolation was a significant issue that the Council and partners were committed to addressing; this included undertaking work to consider how communities could provide further support. 

A Member felt that the budget needed to be revisited to be more service not profit driven and provide a viable service to the elderly and vulnerable.  It was commented that there should be parity across all of Doncaster and that everyone should have access to the same standard of facilities.  It was recognised that everyone including partners were being challenged financially.

Clarification was sought as to how S106 money could be utilised for community benefit.  It was felt that there was a need to consider other areas and services, sending a clear message that the Council was caring and connected.  It was stressed that monies needed to be made available to maintain and continue services in the short-term while other ways of working were considered. 

Reasoning the reduction in the number of users, it was explained that the majority of them were older who had passed away or others that used alternative services or did not prefer mixed services.

In terms of the future level of need for adults with Learning Disabilities, it was explained that projections were available through national databases including POPPI (Projecting Older People Population Information) and PANSI (Projecting Adult Needs and Service Information), which were able to drill down to local area level.  It was stated that there had been a shift with level of referrals slowing down.

Members to be forwarded details of this information.

Direct Payments – It was explained that the Council did not possess data on whether individuals that received direct payments used it to employ support.  It was considered that this was important information to have for the authority to be able to progress. 

Local Authority Training Companies – A Member expressed that their belief was that in-house was best as it was not dependent on profit.  Members were advised that if the Council was to consider an external company, then it would only do if the offer was above and could add value to what the Council could provide.

Occupational Therapists – It was questioned whether the Council was now satisfied about the length of waiting times and process for adapted housing. Concern was raised that individuals were still experiencing long delays with no offer; Members were informed that there was still a backlog which was being worked on.

It was stated that there was a policy that sits behind allocations as people had in the past refused accommodation on a number of occasions and therefore remained longer on the list.  Members asked for numbers of how many people were waiting and how long they were waiting for assessment before being provided with accommodation?

RESOLVED that the Panel note the report and presentation made.