Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

Big plans, bright future

Adult Services and Health Select Committee Minutes

Date:
Tuesday, 29th March, 2016
Time:
4.30pm
Place:
Jim Cooke Conference Suite, Stockton Central Library, The Square, Stockton on Tees, TS18 1TU
 
Please note: all Minutes are subject to approval at the next Meeting

Attendance Details

Present:
Cllr Michael Clark(In the Chair), Cllr Carol Clark (Vice Cllr Mohammed Javed), Cllr Sonia Bailey, Cllr Kevin Faulks, Cllr Lynn Hall, Cllr Tracey Stott
Officers:
Peter Kelly (Director of Adult Services and Health), Liz Hanley (Assistant Director of Adult Social Care), Peter Mennear (Scrutiny Officer), Jenna McDonald (Governance Officer)
In Attendance:
Cllr Carol Clark
Apologies for absence:
Cllr Mohammed Javed(Chairman), Cllr Evaline Cunningham, Cllr Stefan Houghton, Cllr Mick Moore
Item Description Decision
Public
ASH
90/15
DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of interest.
ASH
91/15
LGA PERSONALISATION PEER CHALLENGE
AGREED that the information be noted.
ASH
92/15
BETTER HEALTH PROGRAMME
AGREED that the report be noted and further updates be received.
ASH
93/15
NORTH TEES AND HARTLEPOOL NHS FOUNDATION TRUST QUALITY ACCOUNT
AGREED that the item be deferred.
ASH
94/15
WORK PROGRAMME 2015-16
AGREED that the work programme be noted.

Preamble

ItemPreamble
ASH
91/15
The Committee received a report on the LGA Personalisation Peer Challenge.

It was noted that in December 2015, SBC commissioned a Local Government Association Peer Review of Personalisation across adult social care.

Whilst the overreaching theme of the review was personalisation, through a process of internal and external stakeholder engagement SBC asked for the scope to focus on:

- How Stockton on Tees could maximise the potential of the whole personalisation agenda and ensure scale and pace of change.

- Was the equality of practice across the board sufficiently developed to ensure an effective outcome for users and carers.

- Was Stockton on Tees together with NHS partners effectively shaping the market to meet assessed outcomes.

- What more could be done to develop the relationship with neighbourhoods and communities.

With regard to the outcomes of the personalisation peer challenge, key strengths were noted as follows:

- Individuals felt more empowered by use of Direct Payments

- SBCs recent user and carer survey demonstrated above the national average satisfaction levels

- The Council planned to utilise the Personal Outcomes Evaluation Tool

- There was good evidence of Care Act implementation and compliance producing stronger outcome focus

Areas for consideration were highlighted as follows:

- The target for Direct Payments appeared to have achieved its initial purpose

- It was identified that the support planning process needed to be clearer to people about choices that were available to them and their allocated budget

- Whilst the Council was maintaining a zero level of delayed discharges there was a need to continue to examine outcomes following hospital discharge and the rate at which placements in care homes were used

Members agreed that the report was extremely positive and reflected the time and effort which was invested into the organisation.

Members were keen to understand paper based case loads. It was explained that all client information was stored on an electronic system however some Social Workers preferred to use paper based documents for their case loads.
ASH
92/15
Members gave consideration to a report which provided an update on the Better Health Programme (BHP) and outlined the proposed process for statutory consultation with Health Scrutiny.

Key points were highlighted as follows:

- The BHP was a large scale transformation programme covering a range of NHS clinical services in the Durham and Tees Valley area. The programme was being delivered by the six relevant CCGs in partnership.

- Members noted that engagement work was increasing, with the aim of consulting on a range of proposals from November 2016.

- The Programme was focussed on acute care in hospitals and how high quality services could be achieved and maintained, given the pressures facing the local health economy.

- It was noted that the main drivers for the programme were the need to achieve ever-changing clinical standards and reduce variation together with workforce, health outcomes, public engagement, financial pressures and the NHS Five Year Forward View.

Members received a presentation on the BHP. Key points and emerging issues were highlighted together as follows:

- The BHP was a programme of clinically led work which initially focused on hospital before extending to not in hospital care. The Programme was led by CCGs and supported by Foundation Trusts that worked with local authorities, stakeholders and patient representatives.

- It was noted that the BHP delivered services in the following local authority areas; Durham, Darlington, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland and Stockton-On-Tees in addition to some aspects of care which were delivered in North Yorkshire.

- Members heard that the BHP was essential for factors such as, workforce, clinical standards, health outcomes, public engagement, financial pressures, NHS Five Year Forward View.

- The Committee was provided with key messages from clinicians, public and patients.

- In Summary, Members heard that the purpose of the BHP was to improve outcomes for patients, ensure quality of care and saving lives. BHP was looking at how to match clinical resource to the needs of the population and ensuring that the right services were in the right place.

- Concerns were raised around the strain on Accident and Emergency (A&E) Departments. It was noted that many people used A&E as there were often no other immediate alternatives. Members asked whether GP working hours could be changed to take ease the strain on A&E, in response it was noted that changes were being made to access to GPs and Urgent Care.

- Members agreed that the focus should remain on improving outcomes and delivering a better quality of care whilst saving lives.
ASH
94/15
The Committee gave consideration to the Work Programme 2015-16.

Can't find it

Can't find what you're looking for? Let us know and we'll do our best to point you in the right direction