Agenda item

Purpose of the item: The report provides a detailed summary of complaint activity in Adult Social Care for the period April to September 2021.

Witnesses:

•      Sinead Mooney, Cabinet Member for Adults and Health

•      Simon White, Executive Director of Adult Social Care

•      Kathryn Pyper, Senior Programme Manager (Adult Social Care)

•      Kate Scribbins, Chief Executive Officer (Healthwatch Surrey)

•      Nick Markwick, Co-Chair (Surrey Coalition of Disabled People)

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Senior Programme Manager introduced the report and stated the importance of complaints within ASC and the learning opportunities they provided. Complaints received had increased from this time last year (2020), due to the impact of the pandemic. The Ombudsman investigated six complaints during quarters one and two, and of those, upheld three complaints. On a national scale, the Ombudsman tended to find fault more often with local authorities and providers. A monthly summary was produced for members of the ASC leadership team which covered complaints in their area and the learning that was emerging. Compliments were a useful insight into what was working well, themes of compliments would be featured in future reports. There was no formal process for recording issues of concern at this stage, but they would always be addressed by officers and recorded in case notes. Work was underway to launch a Quality of Practice Dashboard in ASC, the first phase to be launched in January 2021.

2.    The Chairman asked about the timeline of achieving changes regarding learning from complaints and how such changes had been monitored. The Senior Programme Manager explained that in terms of learning that had emerged from a complaint, there would be an action plan in place which would be monitored to ensure the actions had been implemented. There was no

response to address general themes of complaints, rather they were addressed on an individual basis. A lot of improvement work was ongoing and occurred as business-as-usual pieces of work. The Chairman questioned how robust the customer relations management technology was within the Service. The Senior Programme Manager shared that there was a new corporate system introduced a couple of years ago which was fairly robust, and it was within this system that actions and learnings were recorded. 

3.    The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Healthwatch Surrey highlighted the importance of the complaints process being well publicised and accessible to all, as well as the learning opportunities from issues of concern. The Senior Programme Manager explained that the ‘listening to your views’ leaflet had been refreshed and offered to community hubs, and replenishment of the stock could be offered. Best practice issued by the Care Quality Commission required residential homes to have a complaints procedure and complaints literature available to residents and families. The CEO asked how ASC assures itself that it is hearing complaints regarding all aspects of the Service, especially those in residential care, and from service users from all demographics. The Senior Programme Manager stated that at the moment, complaints were looked at in terms of the Service’s main client groups, rather than in terms of protected characteristics. Work could be undertaken to review complaints received in this financial year using the categories of protected characteristics. The Chairman sought reassurance that there was a process in place to ensure complaints were heard from those who could be too afraid to make a formal complaint due to dependence on the staff. The Senior Programme Manager responded that complaints could be made anonymously to reduce fear when making a complaint. The Executive Director of Adult Social Care added that those who could be too afraid to complain were at the heart of safeguarding practices. 

4.    A Member asked how residents were informed about improvements following complaints that had been received. The Senior Programme Manager explained that when responding to the complainant in writing, it would always be explained what actions would be taken following their complaint. It would be assumed that the resident was satisfied with the response unless they said otherwise or went to the Ombudsman. 

5.    A Member asked about the classification regarding complaints on the area of ‘PLD, Autism & Transition’. The Senior Programme Manager explained that this category included complaints from all of those areas, but they could be separated in future reports. The Vice-Chairman asked whether an example of a summary of complaints provided to members of the ASC leadership team could be shared with the Select Committee Members. The Senior Programme Manager stated that an example could be shared with all personal details redacted due to General Data Protection Regulation. The Vice-Chairman enquired about whether the Members could sign up to the monthly ASC E-Brief. The Senior Programme Manager stated that this was an update just sent to ASC staff, however, there could be discussions about extending the audience. 

6.    A Member asked whether there were any plans to formalise the various forms of monitoring into one system. The Senior Programme Manager explained that all the practice information was being pulled together into the Quality of Practice Dashboard, which would include complaints and compliments. Through the Digital Front Door work, further methods of formalising this would be explored. 

7.    The Co-Chair of the Surrey Coalition of Disabled People asked whether there was a formal method of monitoring complaints made by staff themselves. The Senior Programme Manager explained that staff were always consulted when changes were made within the Service and there was a hope that staff would feel comfortable enough to raise concerns generally, but there was no formal process of recording such complaints. The Chairman asked whether there were any plans to introduce this. The Senior Programme Manager explained that staff were regularly involved in discussions and focus groups to ensure their views were heard, but there were no plans to introduce a formal process.

8.             The Chairman asked about the training provided to staff to gather information that could represent issues of concern and how staff channelled complaints. The Senior Programme Manager explained that a monthly training course was held for members of staff and it was well attended. The Chairman queried whether this was the case for agency staff as well. The Senior Programme Manager thought this would be part of the standard induction but would need to check. Staff could also drop into lunchtime learning sessions which occur each month. The Chairman asked whether attendance to training sessions for staff was recorded. The Senior Programme Manager explained that there would be a report available regarding who had attended each training session and the expectation was that senior managers were responsible for monitoring attendance of their team. Attendance was not recorded for lunchtime learning sessions as they were purely voluntary.

9.             The Chairman asked how complaints are shared with any relevant stakeholders. The Senior Programme Manager explained that the Council would lead on the complaints and would liaise with partner agencies to receive their input and for them to complete their part of the investigation. The Council would then respond on behalf of partner agencies which were involved. 

Recommendation:

The Select Committee recommends that a way of formally monitoring

“issues of concern” is developed to ensure complaints and comments made by residents and staff that do not go through formal complaints process are logged, monitored and learnt from, and that the Council works closely with Healthwatch Surrey to ensure that as wide a range of feedback as possible is collected as part of this process.

Actions/requestions for further information:

i.      Senior Programme Manager to ensure complaints literature is replenished in all settings across Surrey.

ii.    Senior Programme Manager to provide the Select Committee with an example of an E-Brief.

iii.   Senior Programme Manager to provide the Select Committee with an example of a summary of complaints provided to the leadership team.

iv.   Senior Programme Manager to ensure that future Adult Social Care Complaints reports to the Select Committee include:

a.    Detailed summaries of complaints where learning was identified and implemented (as referenced in Paragraph

29),

b.    Key messages relating to complaints received by providers and how they are being addressed (as referenced in Paragraph 31),

c.    Breakdown of complaints received from residents from all demographics across Surrey,

d.    A breakdown of complaints received regarding the Learning Disabilities, Autism and Transition service and the specific areas to which these complaints are related.