Agenda item

Purpose of report: Scrutiny of Services

To provide the Scrutiny Committee with an overview of the action taken and proposed by County Council officers to fulfil the requirements of the Care Act in Surrey’s prisons and approved premises.

Declarations of interest:

Margaret Hicks council appointed governor of Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust.

Witnesses:

Stella Charman, Health and Social Care Programme Manager

KemiOyemade, Head of Healthcare, HMP Bronzefield

Dave Sargeant, Strategic Director, Adult Social Care

Cliff Bush, Chairman, Surrey Coalition of Disabled People

Key points raised during the discussion:

·         The Health and Social Care Programme Manager (HSPM) provided Members with a brief introduction to the report highlighting the new responsibilities established by the Care Act which requires the council to provide social care services to prisoners in the county. The Committee was informed that Surrey has a particularly large prison population with almost 3,000 individuals incarcerated of whom 30% are female. It was advised that a contract has been awarded to Surrey and Borders Partnership (SABP) to manage this service which will be reviewed after a year as it is anticipated that there will be increasing demand with hidden need potentially uncovered as the service becomes embedded.

·         The Head of Healthcare at HMP Bronzefield (HH) gave a brief breakdown of the different categories of prison that there are in Surrey and how the variation in the prison population provides a different set of challenges when delivering social care.

·         Members highlighted potential issues around the continued provision of social care services for prisoners once they are released. Of particular concern was the arrangement for prisoners who move to another county once they are released from prison in Surrey. The HSPM confirmed that individuals released from prison are entitled to the same support as other residents and that it is the specialist team’s role to link with the returning local authority if someone leaves Surrey and to share the individual’s care plan. It is then the returning authority’s responsibility to deliver any re-assessment.

·         Information was requested on the role of the Family, Friends and Community (FFC) support programme and how this fits with the delivery of social care services to prisoners. The HSPM advised that in many cases inmates provide assistance to fellow prisoners who require support. Some prisoners have already been given limited training on providing healthcare support to other inmates and plans are currently being discussed to expand this training.

·         Members inquired about the provision in place for prisoners suffering from mental health problems. The HSPM confirmed that ASC are working closely with mental health services and other partners to ensure that the appropriate services are in place to support prisoners with mental health problems. Moreover, ASC have also employed someone within the specialist team with a background in mental health service provision to ensure that the appropriate support is in place. The HH emphasised the importance of providing integrated health and social care services in prisons to ensure all areas of need are met and that this was an area that the council could really add value by bringing the social conception of need alongside the existing medical model.

·         The Chairman of Surrey Coalition of Disabled People (CSCDP) inquired about the model of social care that would be provided to prisoners and requested assurances that this model would offer the same opportunities as those given to other Surrey residents. The SD confirmed that social care teams will be introduced to prisons as part of the integrated model to ensure that the social care needs of prisoners are met. A number of local authorities have taken the decision to hand prison social care services entirely over to healthcare agencies but the ASC team decided against doing this in Surrey, instead expanding its current offer as per the Care Act. SABP hosting the team was a pragmatic decision designed to ensure more cases were not added to the Locality Team’s caseload.

·         Information was requested on the number of prisoners there are in Surrey with disabilities and what provisions have been put in place to meet the needs of these prisoners. The HH indicated that there are 131 prisoners at Bronzefield with registered disabilities, as of December 2014, which cover a wide range of mental and physical conditions. Special consideration also needs to be given to the impact of illegal drugs on these inmates with these conditions due to the high prevalence of dependency. Members were informed that extensive work has already taken place on providing services for prisoners with disabilities and that the introduction of the Care Act will build on this existing work.

·         Attention was drawn to the existing provision of social and pastoral care in prisons with the Committee stressing the need to ensure that ASC works with and builds on any services that are already in place. The HSPM indicated that there are few volunteering organisations operating in Surrey prisons that work on social care issues. The HH advised the Committee that she felt the introduction of social care into prison services would complement rather than prove a hindrance to services that are already in place.

·           The relevance of the Care Act to prisoners held on remand was queried by the Committee. The HSPM advised that the council also has responsibility to provide care services to remand prisoners. The speed with which assessments could be completed for these prisoners was flagged as potentially problematic due to the short space of time that many people are held.

Recommendations:

1.    The Committee supports the model proposed for the first year of operation

Actions/ further information to be provided:

1.    The Committee requests a report on the performance of the service including details of involvement by the voluntary sector at its meeting on 18 December 2015.

Committee next steps:

None