Agenda item

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.

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 Darby entered the room at 10.45am

5.     Further detail was sought on how officers would judge the success of the citizen’s portal. Committee Members heard that the portal had already garnered a considerable amount of interest from residents. A significant number of people were accessing the portal and then dropping out part way through the assessment so officers would undertake some analysis of the reasons for this but it was possible that assessments were not being completed as users were being informed by the system that they were not eligible to receive social care support. The aim of introducing the portal was to mitigate demand on Adult Social Care by reducing the number of requests for a social care assessment received by SCC’s Contact Centre. If the portal led to an increase in the number of people contacting SCC to request a social care assessment then work would be undertaken to understand why this was and to strengthen the Council’s online assessment tools.

6.     The Committee asked whether there was a target for the number of assessments completed using the online tool and if there were any financial implications anticipated from the introduction of the citizens’ portal. Members heard that there was no specific target regarding the uptake of the portal but heard that SCC would monitor usage of the online assessment against the number of calls being received by social care teams. Officers also highlighted the need to develop online tools for existing users so that those already in receipt of social care support were able to interact with the Council digitally. The team that managed the transition of residents from children’s social care to adult social care were particularly keen for online tools to developed as their client group was used to interacting with services and organisations digitally. In respect of savings, officers stated that the portals hadn’t been introduced to save money but stated that use of the digital space to interact with residents around the provision of social care services had the potential to be transformative.

7.     The Committee heard from the Cabinet Member for Adults who highlighted the importance of using technology to interact with residents. Members were informed that the introduction of the portals was the culmination of a significant amount of work by officers within the Adult Social Care Directorate and highlighted that this was the first step in what was hoped would be an ambitious digital offering for users of SCC’s social care services.

8.     Members stated that the elderly population was generally less confident using IT and suggested that elements of the portal were quite complicated which could put some residents off using the online assessment tools which were available. Officers reiterated that the citizen’s portal would not be suitable for everyone but that it was one of a range of options for how residents could find out about their eligibility for social care support.

9.     Attention turned to the assessment within the portal for determining carers’ support needs. Members emphasised the need to engage with stakeholders in order to raise its profile and suggested that those identified as carers could be directed to the portal by their GP. It was further suggested Members could also play a role in promoting the online assessment tool among residents. Officers indicated that the Communications Team had developed a significant amount of material to promote the portal informing as many people as possible that it existed. This included a plan to engage with stakeholders and partners so that they could cascade information to those that they came into contact with. Material was also being developed by the Communications Team to share with Members to make use of their experience in order to promote the Portal.

10.  The Deputy CEO of Healthwatch stated that health and social care service users often report that there is either too much or not enough information in respect of accessing services. He highlighted that the Portal had the functionality to provide residents with specific information about their eligibility for support as well as signposting them to services that were targeted towards specific needs. Officers were asked whether any work had been undertaken with healthcare colleagues around hospital discharge given that it was a significant source of demand on Adult Social Care. The Committee heard that healthcare partners had not been specifically engaged in the development of the portal as work was underway through the Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships to develop and implement an overarching digital strategy. NHS England had introduced a requirement for STPs to develop a portal that would enable patients to manage aspects of their healthcare online although Members were informed that it would be sometime before a single health and social care portal could be implemented. In terms of hospital discharge specifically, Members heard that the portal had only been live for two months and that during this period it had been necessary to manage the number of people using it. Officers recognised the potential of the portal as a tool for assessing social care need but indicated that the development of its functionality would be an iterative process.

Recommendations:

The Adults and Health Select Committee agreed to receive a further update on the portal’s development at its meeting in September 2018.