Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Adults and Communities, which provided information on the review of the Council’s in-house respite and short break provision and the case for change to deliver best value for the Council. A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 12’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from the discussion, the following points were made:

1. It was noted that there were three respite facilities in the County: Wigston, Melton, and a twelve-bedded unit at Hinckley. Alongside residential settings, there were also shared lives services offering overnight short breaks which were geographically spread over the County. It was noted that each of the three units were different in terms of their capability of meeting people’s needs, from people requiring limited support, through to complex needs requiring, for example, hoisting, or additional one to one support.

2. In response to a Member’s question on whether the respite service was offered on a need’s basis rather than a cost basis, it was explained that any offer of respite would be made following an assessment of a person’s needs before cost was considered.   The Director explained that the Authority would be responsible for meeting a persons identified unmet needs following an assessment and would look at all options for the best way to meet those needs. Cost was a factor considered as part of this process.  The Department had a Fair Outcomes Policy, which detailed how the process would be undertaken and the choices that were available to people. Furthermore, if a person wanted a more expensive provision than could be procured by the Authority, they would have the option to support part of that cost themselves, either through individual support, or through a third party.

3. As the Authority only had the three respite units, a Member questioned if it would look at partnership working in order to offer more services, particularly in rural locations which were often difficult to reach. The Director explained that a key issue for private sector providers in terms of both respite and short breaks care was financial viability due to the number of voids and vacant beds during periods of low demand, such as during school holidays and weekends.  As a result it was a difficult area for providers to manage and make a profit on a commercial basis.  It was for this reason the provision of such services tended to be expensive, as overall costs factored in expected vacancy costs.

4. The Director reported that due to the number of vacancies within the internal service, expansion was not currently being considered. However, if following the review a need for expansion was identified, partnership working would be an option looked at. It was noted that the building of the care units was bespoke, had very high levels of equipment and were very expensive to build, so it was not something that the Council could currently deliver on its own.

5. A Member asked if there was any respite care for people with physical difficulties of working age, as it appeared many had to be placed in elderly residential care which was not appropriate.  It was suggested that this seemed to be a gap in the market. It was reported that people with physical disabilities could be supported, but ordinarily the Authority would be looking to the external market to provide such respite care. With the Shared Lives scheme, respite short breaks could be offered to people with physical needs in a shared lives environment, if that was appropriate for that person’s needs.
   
   

6. It was acknowledged that a lot of people of working age with a physical disability simply wanted an ordinary break such as a holiday.  In such cases it would be more appropriate for them to access a service available outside of the County Council ensuring that any venue could cater to their specific needs. Direct payments were offered to people, for example, to employ a personal assistant to accompany them on a break to support them. There was a range of options for people if they did not need a specialist environment, but if a specialist environment was required, then it was largely in the private residential sector.

7. In response to a question, it was noted that there was cross referral between the City and County for such services, with strong links and contracts in place.  For example, approximately 20% of residential care provision for County residents was in the City, and similarly the City would use facilities in the County. The border was quite fluid in the way people lived and chose to be near family.

RESOLVED:

That the report on the Prevention Review Programme – Respite and Short Break Provision be noted.