Agenda and minutes
PDF 217 KBVenue: Ashcombe Suite, County Hall, Kingston upon Thames, Surrey KT1 2DN
Contact: Andy Baird, Democratic Services Officer
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE AND SUBSTITUTIONS
Minutes: Apologies were received from David Wright and Victoria Young
|
|
|
Minutes of the Previous Meeting: 9 November 2017
To agree the minutes of the previous meeting as a true and accurate record of proceedings. Minutes: The minutes were agreed as a true record of the meeting. |
|
|
Declarations of Interest
All
Members present are required to declare, at this point in the
meeting or as soon as possible thereafter:
I.
Any disclosable
pecuniary interests and / or II. Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this meeting
NOTES: ·
Members are reminded that they must not participate
in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest ·
As well as an interest of the Member, this includes
any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the
Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the
Member is living as a spouse or civil partner) · Members with a significant personal interest may participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial. Minutes: None received
|
|
|
Questions and Petitions
To
receive any questions or petitions. Notes: 1. The deadline for Member’s questions is 12.00pm four working days before the meeting (19 January 2018).
2. The deadline for public questions is seven days before the meeting(18 January 2018).
3. The deadline for petitions was 14 days before the meeting, and no petitions have been received. Minutes: The Adults and Health Select Committee received a number of public questions. Responses to these questions are attached to these minutes as Appendix 1.
|
|
Purpose of the report:
To acquaint the Adults and Health Select Committee with the proposal for the Surrey Care Record and to seek opinion and guidance on considerations around implementation of Phase One of the initiative. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interests:
None
Witnesses:
Steve Abbott, Chief Information Officer and IM&T Programme Director, Surrey Heartlands Health & Care Partnership Helyn Clack, Cabinet Member for Health, Surrey County Council Tony Delaney, Communications Manager, Surrey Heartlands Health & Care Partnership Nick Markwick, Surrey Coalition of Disabled People Sarah Parker, Director of Transformation, Surrey Heartlands Health & Care Partnership Matt Parris, Deputy CEO, Healthwatch Surrey
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The report was introduced by officers from Surrey Heartlands Health and Care Partnership who informed Select Committee Members that the aspiration for the Surrey Care Record was to give healthcare professionals the information required to make the best possible decisions by enabling them to access patient data and information. Members heard that the implementation of the Surrey Care Record would take place in several stages. The proposal to make GP medical records available to clinicians at A&E departments within the Surrey Heartlands STP footprint and East Surrey CCG areas was the first phase of this project.
2. Witnesses stated that information governance procedures were currently being developed to accompany the implementation of the first phase of the Surrey Care Record to ensure that patient information would be stored and shared safely. Discussions were underway with partners and stakeholders from across the healthcare community within the Surrey Heartlands and East Surrey areas to consult them in the development of robust information governance procedures.
3. The Select Committee was advised that a 12-week engagement period would soon commence and which aimed to make people aware of the introduction of the Surrey Care Record and their right to opt out of sharing some or all of their medical information. The engagement period would include leafleting households within the Surrey Heartlands and East Surrey area, asking GPs and other relevant stakeholders to disseminate information on their established communications channels as well as making use of online platforms such as social media.
4. Members heard that the introduction of the Surrey Care Record was just one element of integrating how care was delivered and one strand of the digital strategy to create a unified health and social care system under the aegis of Surrey Heartlands Health and Care Partnership. The aspiration was to integrate health and social care records during a future phase of the development of the Surrey Care Record.
5. The Committee enquired about the decision by officers to proceed on an opt-out rather than an opt-in basis for including patients within the Surrey Care Record and stressed that engagement would have to be exceptionally widespread to ensure that all residents within the footprint were given sufficient opportunity to opt-out of their medical records being shared through the Surrey Care Record. Witnesses advised that this had been determined in consultation with GPs who felt that the SCR should be introduced on an opt-out basis. There would also be significant additional cost associated with requiring residents to opt-in and so this had also impacted on the decision. Officers further highlighted that a significant amount of ... view the full minutes text for item 5/18 |
|
|
Adult Social Care Online Portals
Purpose of the report:
To update Members of the Adults and Health Select Committee on the Adult Social Care systems replacement project with regard to the implementation of online portals.
Minutes: Declarations of interest:
None
Witnesses:
Toni Carney, Head of Resources & Caldicott Guardian, Adult Social Care, Surrey County Council Mel Few, Cabinet Member for Adults, Surrey County Council Nick Markwick, Surrey Coalition of Disabled People Matt Parris, Deputy CEO, Healthwatch Surrey Liz Uliasz, Deputy Director of Adult Social Care, Surrey County Council Claire White, Lead Project Manager, Adult Social Care, Surrey County Council
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The Committee received an introduction to the report from officers who highlighted that SCC had implemented a series of online portals to deliver more efficient engagement with providers and service users. A specific portal had been created for providers which enabled them to submit invoices to the Council electronically although this was being introduced slowly due to the need to make providers aware of the portal and then training them on how to use it.
2. Members received a demonstration from officers on SCC’s new citizens’ portal. Officers advised that the portal was an addition to the existing mediums through which residents could seek information from the Council on their eligibility for social care support. The Committee heard from officers that it was anticipated that those completing the online assessment process would be assisted by friends and relatives. The citizen’s portal had been separated into so two parts, one that surveys a client’s support needs and another which undertook a financial assessment to give an indication as to whether a person would be required to pay for social care. The portal utilised Care Act principles to assess levels of social care need while also signposting residents to where they could find support if they were not eligible for social care. The Committee was advised that, following completion of the online assessment by someone deemed to be eligible for support, a social worker would be sent out to undertake a physical assessment of their individual requirements.
3. The Committee was informed that SCC had not yet advertised the new citizens’ portal to residents. This was to give the Council the opportunity to correct any problems that arose before the portal received a significant amount of traffic. An advertising campaign had, however, been developed with the Communications Team which included radio advertising, posters and cascading through stakeholders to formally launch the online portal in February.
4. Members highlighted that the Adult Social Care Portal was primarily aimed at an audience who were often less confident using IT and asked officers to comment on its accessibility. The Committee was advised that the introduction of the client portal was about providing residents with another choice about how to find out about their eligibility for social care support and that pre-existing ways for residents to seek an assessment would continue to exist. Officers challenged the assumption that older people lack confidence using IT systems but stated that those who didn’t have access to a computer or found it challenging to use them would still be able contact the Council through existing methods.
Mr Nick ... view the full minutes text for item 6/18 |
|
|
Update on Home-based Care
Purpose of the report:
At its meeting on 20 January 2017, Surrey County Council’s Social Care Services Board received a report on Surrey’s Home Based Care market and agreed to receive further update from officer following re-commissioning of the Service in October 2017. This report provides an update on the Home Based Care market in Surrey to the Adults & Health Select Committee as the successor to the Social Care Services Board while also detailing the impact of the e-brokerage system in more efficiently engaging with and developing the market.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of interest:
None
Witnesses:
Akbar Dhala, Alpenbest Care Mel Few, Cabinet Member for Adults, Surrey County Council Ian Lyall, Strategic Procurement Manager, Surrey County Council Caroline Lapwood, Project Officer, Surrey County Council Nick Markwick, Surrey Coalition of Disabled People Matt Parris, Deputy CEO, Healthwatch Surrey Liz Uliasz, Deputy Director of Adult Social Care, Surrey County Council
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. Members asked if Key Performance Indicators (KPI) were the only mechanism through which the Council could assess providers’ usage of the e-brokerage system given that data relating to these KPIs was input by providers themselves. The Committee was advised that SCC also maintained an Action Log for each provider which allowed information on their performance to be completed by Council officers and stakeholders which provided an accurate picture of individual provider’s performance. 2. Discussions turned to whether the e-brokerage system was supporting Surrey’s Home Based Care provider market. Members heard that the introduction of the e-brokerage system had improved efficiency and productivity among Home Based Care providers allowing all organisations to compete for packages of care on a level playing field. The system also enabled providers to work with their staff in order to understand flexibility and capacity within the market. 3. Members highlighted that people living in rural areas found it challenging to secure a home based care package and asked whether it was difficult to recruit care workers to operate in rural areas. Witnesses confirmed that it was harder to recruit care workers for rural areas given the additional costs associated with travelling but suggested that these challenges could be mitigated by awarding a travel allowance to these staff to offset these additional costs. 4. The Committee asked why not all registered home-based care providers in Surrey used the e-brokerage system. Officers highlighted that the system had significantly increased choice for residents wishing to access a package of care since it was first introduced but indicated that some providers deal exclusively with self-funders meaning that it wasn’t necessary for them to use the e-brokerage system. 5. Members sought clarity on how SCC ensure that the e-brokerage system is fair and doesn’t heap added pressure onto the already stretched home based care provider market. The Committee was advised that officers had done a great deal of engagement with providers through the Surrey Care Association Provider Network to ensure that the implementation of the new system helped rather than hindered providers. It was stated that all providers registered on the system had a contract with Surrey with agreed rates for delivering packages of care. Furthermore, data generated by the system enabled the Council to monitor the market and take mitigating steps if the market came under significant pressure. 6. The Director of Surrey Coalition of Disabled People informed the Committee that the e-brokerage system had improved the market in some parts of Surrey although it remained difficult to get a package of care in many areas. He indicated that it was hard to pinpoint ... view the full minutes text for item 7/18 |
|
|
Adult Social Care Debt
Purpose of the Report:
To update the Adults and Health Select Committee on Surrey County Council’s Adult Social Care Debt position as at the end of November 2017. Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest:
None
Witnesses:
Toni Carney, Head of Resources & Caldicott Guardian, Adult Social Care, Surrey County Council Mel Few, Cabinet Member for Adults, Surrey County Council Nick Markwick, Surrey Coalition of Disabled People Matt Parris, Deputy CEO, Healthwatch Surrey Liz Uliasz, Deputy Director of Adult Social Care, Surrey County Council
Key points raised during the discussion:
1. The report was introduced by officers who informed Committee Members that adult social care debt had been an ongoing challenge for the Council. The Financial Assessment and Benefits (FAB) Team had been transferred across to the Adult Social Care (ASC) Directorate from the Orbis Partnership which meant that the collection of debt through the implementation of the Dunning Process was the responsibility of ASC staff. Members heard that the decision to transfer responsibility for collecting money owed to the Council for the provision of social care to the ASC Directorate had been taken following the implementation of a deferred payment initiative which had led to a considerable reduction in the amount of money owed to SCC for social care.
2. Attention turned to an updated version of Annex 1 which was tabled at the meeting and is attached as Appendix 2 to these minutes. Members highlighted that the table suggested that the majority of money owed to the Council for the provision of social care appeared to be forthcoming. Officers highlighted that more analysis was required to understand the different categories of debt to understand the extent to which monies owed to SCC should be classed as secured or unsecured. The Committee was advised that officers would be proactive in pursuing unsecured debt which was deemed to be recoverable.
3. Members asked how SCC would approach the recovery of social care debt differently since its transfer over to the ASC Directorate. The Committee heard that the FAB Team would undertake a review of the Dunning Process to ensure that it was fully effective. Previous experience had demonstrated that having direct conversations with those who missed payments for social care support was more effective at recovering debt than simply sending them a letter. In the majority of cases those who owed the Council money for social care support did want to pay but there were physical restrictions on their ability to do so and in these instances the FAB Team were able to assist users in making payments. Members heard that some people felt that social care should be a free service, in these instances it was important for the FAB Team to highlight their obligation to pay for social care and then fast-track legal proceedings against those who still refused to pay.
4. The Cabinet Member for Adults highlighted that he had advocated for the FAB Team to be transferred across to the ASC Directorate stating that it made sense for collection of social care debt to be done in house. He further emphasised the need to promote Direct Debit as means of payment for the receipt of social care. 5. The ... view the full minutes text for item 8/18 |
|
Purpose of the Report:
To provide the Committee with an update on developments in the Surrey Heartlands Sustainability and Transformation Partnership (STP) and scrutiny undertaken by the Sub-Group since it was established.
Additional documents: Minutes: Declarations of Interest:
None
Witnesses:
None
Key points raised during the discussion:
None |
|
|
Recommendations Tracker and Forward Work Programme
The Board is asked to review and approve the Forward Work Programme and Recommendations Tracker and provide comment as required. Minutes: Declarations of Interest:
None
Witnesses:
None
Key points raised during the discussion:
None
|
|
|
DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING
The next public meeting of the committee will be held at 10am on Wednesday 4 April in the Ashcombe Suite at County Hall. Minutes: The Committee noted that its next meeting would be held on 4 April 2018. |