Venue: Sparkenhoe Committee Room, County Hall, Glenfield. View directions
Contact: Mrs. A. Smith (0116 305 2583) Email: angie.smith@leics.gov.uk
No. | Item |
---|---|
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting held on 22 January 2024 were taken as read, confirmed and signed. |
|
Question Time. Minutes: The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 34. |
|
Questions asked by members under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). Minutes: The Chief Executive reported that no questions had been received under Standing Order 7(3) and 7(5). |
|
Urgent items. Minutes: There were no urgent items for consideration. |
|
Declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda. Minutes: The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to declare any interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting. No declarations were made. |
|
Declarations of the Party Whip in accordance with Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 16. Minutes: There were no declarations of the party whip. |
|
Presentation of Petitions under Standing Order 35. Minutes: The Chief Executive reported that no petitions had been received under Standing Order 35. |
|
CQC Assessment of Local Authorities. PDF 144 KB Additional documents:
Minutes: The Committee considered a report of the Director of Adults
and Communities which provided a summary of the latest guidance from the Care Quality
Commission (CQC) regarding the assessment process and feedback from the pilot
inspections which were undertaken during the summer of 2023, and the latest
versions of the Department’s Self-Assessment and Improvement Plan. A copy of
the report marked ‘Agenda Item 8’ is filed with these minutes. Arising from discussion the following points were made: i.
Members questioned how people on the waiting
list were to be kept informed of any changes to their situations. The Director
reported that there was a waiting list practice guidance and policy which
required managers within the Department to review people waiting for assessment
on a weekly basis, to see if there was any change in their needs, which helped
to prioritise a person’s position on the waiting list and ensured risks were
managed. Over the period of six to nine months since this guidance was adopted,
waiting lists had dropped by half as people were being seen more quickly and
risks managed in a cohesive way. ii.
The Director provided information on Impact, an
organisation hosted and sponsored by the University of Birmingham which
provided national research on social care, and which was looking across the
East Midlands at people’s waiting experience. The County Council was working
with Impact to look at other ways of managing risk around waiting to ensure
people had the best experience, and to consider what could be done to improve
their experience and that of carers and families. iii.
Members queried where the Director thought the
County Council would stand in the CQC ratings when looking at the results of
the CQC pilot scheme. The Director reported that he had no doubt that from a
practice, strategic and policy perspective the Council would rated a strong
‘Good’. However, the feedback from the annual user survey and bi-annual carer
survey, including ease of accessing information, or how much social contact
people had, placed a lot of the Council’s key performance indicators in the
bottom two quartiles. This moved the Council
to being on the cusp of ‘Requires Improvement’ to ‘Good’. It was noted that the
CQC placed a lot of weight on what people told them and would not assess any
authority as excellent if they did not have good user survey results. iv. Members asked if an action plan was in place to reshape the thinking of customers in preparation for the CQC inspection. The Director reported that the two main areas of complaint and frustration related firstly contact, either with customer services and long telephone waiting times, or social contact, and secondly financial assessment outcomes and charging. Whilst work had been undertaken to address these issues, the area of social contact was a difficult one to address. Work was planned with the community and voluntary sector to support the Council in this area. However, the Director explained that the Council did not provide or commission as much social support as other councils, as it did not have the same level of funding to support this. A Member suggested that the Department could send a generic email every few months to find out how people were doing. This would help provide some assurance to people that the Council was keeping in touch and monitoring their support needs at no cost to the Council. The Director agreed that this was a good suggestion, and that conversations could also be held with people who provided care to see if they too could have those same conversations. The Director ... view the full minutes text for item 64. |
|
Review of the Social Care Investment Programme (SCIP). PDF 192 KB Additional documents: Minutes: The Committee considered a report of the Director of Adults
and Communities which invited the Committee to comments on the findings and recommendations
following a recent review of the Council’s Social Care Investment Programme
(SCIP) and set out how the outcome of the review would impact on the focus of
the Programme going forward. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 9’ is
filed with these minutes. Arising from discussion the following points were made: i.
In response to a Member’s query, the Director
reported that 78 individual placements had been supported and savings of
£480,000 (£6,000 per person) had been made through the SCIP. On average around
£1,500 per week was spent on a residential care placement for clients.
Supported Living could potentially be provided at around £100 to £200 cheaper
with some exceptions. The Director added that it was better to use capital
money to invest where a revenue saving could be made, whilst improving the
quality of life for people. ii.
Members questioned if there was still a demand
for the places that would be developed, and asked how, with the current cost of
living, the people being targeted to live in them would be able to afford to do
so. The Director replied that there were largely two elements to the programme;
firstly supported living for people of working age, and extra care for people
aged 55years plus. With the former, there were people known to the Council who
wanted to move into independent living, with over 300 people living in 24-hour
care who no longer needed to be there, and with another 70 properties available
over the next two years for which there was no doubt would be fully utilised. iii.
With regards to extra care provision,
Leicestershire had fewer beds than other areas, and was not really seen as a
real alternative to long-term care in Leicestershire, whereas in other
authority areas it was. The Director reported that work with the wider
population and staff internally was needed, to ensure people knew about the
benefits extra care could bring. With regards to costs, it was noted people
living in extra care might receive enhanced levels of Housing Benefit to cover
some of the extra elements of care received, whilst also having a better
quality of life. However, there were pros and cons to each way of living,
whether residential or extra care, and it was an individual decision with each
person assessed on an individual basis as to what would suit them best. iv.
Members saw the positivity of developing extra
care facilities but questioned the feasibility of being able to deliver I the
SCIP in the current economic climate, such as, increased cost of materials. The
Director reported there would be a refresh of the investment prospectus in
consultation with district councils who had control of local plans. This set out the supply and demand needs of
what was required across Leicestershire over the next five to 20 years with
regarding to extra care housing. It was noted that a new piece of legislation
was expected to come into force which required district and county councils to
have a duty to cooperate in assessing the need for supported accommodation in
each district, and this would have to feature within local plans. v. Members were informed that whilst there were some very good modern facilities in Leicestershire, there was some older provision which was not quite so good, and some areas where there was little or no supply of extra care accommodation. The Director informed Members that there were three sites currently being ... view the full minutes text for item 65. |
|
Nursing Care Provision in Leicestershire. PDF 195 KB Minutes: The Committee considered a report of the Director of Adults
and Communities which provided an update on the current position of nursing care
provision in Leicestershire. The report also provided an update on the work
with Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland (LLR) Integrated Care Board (ICB) on
funding levels in Leicestershire for people with complex care needs. A copy of
the report marked ‘Agenda Item 10’ is filed with these minutes. Arising from discussion the following points were made: i.
Members considered the position that the lack of
nursing home beds had on the NHS and on people waiting to leave hospital, which
in turn caused delays for people waiting for treatments. Members considered the
provision of nursing homes to be of paramount importance and questioned how the
situation could be improved. The Director reported that the Council had been in
discussions with NHS colleagues to try and address this. The nursing care
market was not as robust as it should be in Leicestershire which in turn
impacted on the overall provision of health care and the flow of people through
different health and care services. It was noted that funding was a critical
factor. ii.
Members
heard that occasionally the Council would hear of an upcoming care development
and would have strategic conversations with providers to drive this forward
where possible. However, independent
providers would look at the level of funding available for care in
Leicestershire, and more than likely invest elsewhere for a better return on
investment. They would also usually
target the residential or self-funder market which were more profitable. This was a significant issue for the Authority
which had previously been on the verge of running out of nursing beds. The
position had since stabilised with two new nursing care developments being
established in Leicester City. iii.
Members commented that the low level of funding
received by the County Council was stark and were particularly concerned about the low funding received for end
of life care. It called upon the ICB to
urgently review the position and questioned why it was considered appropriate
that the funding provided to LLR should be so much lower than anywhere else in
the country. Members strongly supported
the Director and Cabinet colleagues in its attempts to raise the level funding
received, commenting that residents of
Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland were being highly disadvantaged compared
to neighbouring counties. iv.
Members questioned how the five nursing homes in
the County rated as ‘Requires Improvement’ could be brought up to
a ‘Good’ standard. The Director reported that the Quality and Improvement Team
worked with providers to develop action plans through visits, checks and
ongoing support to get the rating level uplifted. RESOLVED: a)
That the report on Nursing Care Provision in
Leicestershire be noted with concern. b)
That it be noted that the Committee supported
the Director of Adults and Communities and the Cabinet in its approach to
secure appropriate funding for nursing care services and in particular to
redress the low level of funding for end-of-life care which severely
disadvantaged residents living in Leicestershire. |
|
Update on the Archives, Collection and Learning Centre. PDF 148 KB Minutes: The Committee considered a report of the Director of Adults
and Communities which provided an update on developments and sought the views of
the Committee on options relating to the Archives, Collections and Learning
(ACL) Centre. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 11’ is filed with these
minutes. Arising from discussion the following points were made: i.
Members expressed disappointment that the
original proposal to build the ACL Centre would no longer proceed due to the
County Council’s challenging financial position and current budget gap. Members queried if, as an alternative, other
parts of County Hall could be utilised through the Ways of Working Programme,
or if non-performing assets could be sold to fund the new centre. ii.
Members noted that the current capital value of
the Record Office in Wigston was around £950,000. However, the cost of maintenance works
required to be undertaken to the building was estimated to be just over
£1.7million. This was based on a recent
assessment of the condition of the building and covered works necessary to the
heating and ventilation systems, windows, floor loading and access to the
building. These works were essential and
needed to take place over the next one to three years. Members commented with
concern that investing in such maintenance works would cost the Authority more
than the building was worth, noting that strong rooms were expensive and not
very practical for other types of use, and so would not increase the value of
the site. iii.
Members noted a new archive could not be built
in stages, but had to be built as one unit, and with the cost of building this
part of the centre would be £20million of a £30million total cost estimate,
none of the partners had the capital necessary to progress this further. The
remaining £10million was for a museum store, the cost of which would be met by
the County Council. iv.
Members queried if the County Council was coming
close to losing its accreditation, and if it did, what the anticipated cost to
the Council would be. The Director responded that the cost to the Council was
not known. Useful, open discussions had been held with The National Archives
(TNA), and they had been appreciative of the honesty around the challenges
faced by the partners. However, their principal concern was the care of the
public record, with maintenance of the building being one issue. Another
problem in terms of accreditation was no expansion space and records in
non-compliant storage which would not be addressed even if the £1.7million was
invested in the current site. Members noted there was a possible risk would be
that TNA could make provision to ensure records were kept in compliant storage
and recharge the costs of doing so. v.
Work was ongoing to look at the procurement of
external archive compliant storage which would meet accreditation requirements,
as well as investment into the existing building. However, whilst there would
be access to collections for statutory purposes such as subject access
requests, there would be a challenge with provision of public access to
collections if stored elsewhere. vi. Members asked if records could be split and those belonging to Leicester City and Rutland returned in order to free up space for the records for Leicestershire. The Director reported the LLR partnership had been in place since before Local Authority Reorganisation in 1997, and many records pertained to the whole area, such as, diocesan records and regimental records which could not be separated. It therefore made sense to continue to have a LLR records office. Furthermore, this would ... view the full minutes text for item 67. |
|
Date of next meeting. The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled to take place on 3 June 2024, at 2.00pm. Minutes: It was noted that the next meeting of the Committee would be held on 3 June at 2.00pm. |