Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Adults and Communities which provided an update on the progress of developing the Adult Social Care Target Operating Model (TOM).  It was noted that the programme was currently on track with the programme plan and original objectives.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 10’ is filed with these minutes.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the key activities which had taken place during the design phase, as detailed in the report, in particular the testing of initial ideas and the preliminary results.  It was the intention that these would be signed off in the coming months to be implemented across the county.  Each service was being tested in a locality and would ultimately be rolled out to each area of Leicestershire.

Arising from the discussion, the following comments were made:

i)             The principles had been trialled and implemented in a number of other local authorities throughout the country.  Within Leicestershire, improvements had already begun to be realised.  One of the areas being looked at was the Customer Service Centre (CSC), in terms of how it operated and how to improve the time it took for work to be passed through the CSC to a locality.  When the work had commenced, it had been taking eight days for the initial work in the CSC to take place and it was now taking two days. 

ii)            In terms of localities in the reablement offer, this had begun to be tested in Hinckley.  It had been found that the productivity of the reablement service could be improved by changing some of the decision making, by reviewing cases on a daily rather than weekly basis.  This would enable greater capacity in the service, such that it had already been possible to take on all the work of the independent sector in the Hinckley area and bring it back in-house to the HART service.  It was anticipated that this would also take place in the Wigston area.

iii)           It was essential that there was service user involvement in the development of the TOM.  However, as it was only currently at the design phase, it was important to get the views of people using the service without giving them false expectations.  A process was used with staff to dip test their views and this was now beginning to be rolled out to service users.  It was easier to check satisfaction levels in areas such as the reablement service due to its short term nature, but when working with people with learning difficulties, it was a more difficult process due to it being more long term.  Significant improvements had been made with the matching process and the department had consulted with groups such as the Learning Disability Partnership Board.

iv)           The report highlighted that should the programme not deliver a recurrent annualised benefit greater than 1.5 times the one-off fee, the strategic development partner’s fee would be reduced until the ratio was satisfied.  It was hoped that this would not have a detrimental impact on the level of service and the work completed.  As part of the overall governance of the programme, the Benefit Monitoring Board met on a monthly basis to consider what had been achieved and to measure individual service user outcomes and the overall benefit to the service area.  Assurance was given that no invoices were signed off by the department until it was satisfied that the target improvements had been achieved.  In relation to the 1.5 times benefit, this related to the fee being contingent upon the delivery of the financial benefits.

v)            In response to a query, it was stated that the design phase did not link to national legislation due to the short timescale of this phase.  The department was working towards what it felt was national best practice and it was anticipated that what would be undertaken was consistent with national policy.  However, if there were any significant national changes, it would be necessary to consider renegotiating the contract.

vi)           The Committee agreed with the statement that the approach being adopted was not about cutting services, but about ensuring that the best outcome for the service user was at the heart of any changes.  It was felt that improvements for staff should also be included in the report.  Regular updates on progress would be provided to the Committee.

RESOLVED:

a)That the report be noted;

b) That the Committee receives regular updates on progress with the Target Operating Model.