Agenda and minutes

To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting of the Commission held on 29 October 2013.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 2 September and 29 October were approved as a true and correct record and signed by the Chairman, subject to the following amendments:

• Minutes from 2 September would be amended to reflect Mel Brain’s name correctly

To remind Members of the need to record the existence and nature of any Personal, Disclosable Pecuniary or other interests in items on the agenda, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct.

Councillor Tony Vickers and Councillor Roger Hunneman declared an interest in Agenda Items 10 & 12, and reported that, as their interests were personal and not prejudicial, they determined to remain to take part in the debate and vote on the matter.

Councillor Emma Webster declared a potential interest in Agenda item 10 and reported that as her interest was not personal or prejudicial but a disclosable pecuniary interest that she would leave the meeting should the discussion lead to the mention of financial arrangements.

Purpose: To receive an update on actions following the previous Commission meeting.

It was confirmed that the Homelessness Strategy had been offered as an agenda item for the next District Parish Conference but that the agenda had not yet been set.

Item 2.4 contained the response from Councillor Alan Law in respect of the letter written by the OSMC to request sight of the Revenue and Capital Budget Report prior to its submission in to Executive.

Councillor Tony Vickers queried the response to item 2.7 as he thought that the Executive’s acceptance of the recommendation meant that the item would form part of the Homelessness Strategy. It was confirmed that the item formed part of the work conducted by the scrutiny task group and that the subsequent action was for the Portfolio Holder to raise the item with Newbury Town Council (NTC). Item 2.7 provided the Commission with the response from the NTC.

Item 2.8 would be amended so that the additional ‘would’ from the end of the sentence was removed from the sentence.

Councillor Alan Macro expressed his concern about the suggested waiting times illustrated in Appendix A. This was echoed by Councillor Jeff Beck who asked whether resource was identified to ensure the statistics improved. Jan Evans explained that funds had been found for four agency workers to target waiting times and discussions would take place to fund one full time, permanent employee from 2013/14.

Councillor Roger Hunneman suggested that the volume of people waiting for assessments would increase when the revised Government Care Bill was introduced in 2015 and asked Jan Evans to explain whether she felt the service had sufficient resource to manage the demand.

Jan Evans advised that the Government Care Bill was not expected to disadvantage local authorities as resource would be provided to meet the Care Bill requirements. Jan Evans informed the Commission that the service had approximately 600 people on the Adult Social Care books.

Councillor Gwen Mason requested that the use of acronyms within professionals’ reports was kept to a minimum and where possible explained in full.

Resolved that the report be noted.

Purpose: To advise the Commission of items to be considered by West Berkshire Council from December 2013 to March 2014 and decide whether to review any of the proposed items prior to the meeting indicated in the Plan.

http://www.westberks.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1594

The Commission considered the West Berkshire Forward Plan (Agenda Item 5) for the period covering December 2013 to March 2014.

Resolved that the Forward Plan was noted.

Purpose: To receive new items and agree and prioritise the work programme of the Commission for the remainder of 2013/14.

The Commission considered its work programme for 2012/13.

Councillor Tony Vickers questioned the future review dates for item OSMC/13/150. The Commission agreed as item OSMC/12/143 was due to conclude its activity then there would be resource available to start the a review of the factors causing disproportionate numbers of young families to become homeless in the new year.

Resolved that

• A task group would be established to examine the circumstances surrounding homelessness in young families.

Purpose: To consider any items called-in by the requisite number of Members following the previous Executive meeting.

Councillor Brian Bedwell introduced the request to review the current parking policy. Members agreed that the item would be considered in more detail at the next meeting.

Resolved that

• The item would be added to the next agenda for discussion.

Purpose: To consider any items proposed for a Councillor Call for Action.

There were no Councillor Calls for Action.

Purpose: To consider any petitions requiring an Officer response.

There were no petitions to be received at the meeting.

Purpose: To assess the effect of the CHC operations policy and procedures in practise 6 months following implementation.

Jan Evans presented information to the Commission in respect of Continuing Healthcare (CHC) arrangements in Berkshire.

Jan Evans advised that the NHS CHC was a package of continuing care arranged and solely funded by the NHS when the individual had a primary health need which met the NHS eligibility criteria. The Council had set its own eligibility for social care criteria at “critical” but this was for a separate purpose and the two were not connected. The CHC assessments considered the complexity of an individual’s presenting needs, if deemed eligible for care then the service would be provided a no cost to the client. Jan Evans explained that in the past care provision was provided in hospitals.

The Commission heard that the CHC assessment process initially involved the use of a checklist following a referral. At the initial stage the threshold was set low and with the use of the Decision Support Tool the NHS would collate evidence to assess whether the individual met the eligibility criteria. If the decision was disputed then the case could be reviewed at a Multi Disciplinary Team (MDT) meeting and a recommendation submitted to the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) for a final decision.

Jan Evans explained that following concerns around the application of the CHC process, an independent review took place in 2012. The review provided 52 recommendations, highlighted within five key areas for review by the then PCT and LA Adult Social Care:

·        Policies and procedures 

·        Dispute process

·        Hospital discharge

·        End of life

·        Joint training

Jan Evans explained that the first four items had been addressed. The joint training programme took time to establish but successfully completed training in October 2013 for 600 staff across the two acute trusts and six unitary authorities.

In order to monitor progress of those actions the few areas that were outstanding, representatives from Berkshire West and Berkshire East local authorities met with the Assistant Director for CHC to review the agreed action plan. The group’s purpose was to monitor the implementation of changes, the Management Information (MI) disseminated by the CCGs, the implications of the changes made to polices and procedures and review the dispute policy. The group would formally review all changes one year after implementation.

Jan Evans advised that the three main areas for consideration by the group were;

·        Management Information produced by the CCGs

·        The assessment times and waiting lists associated with initial assessment

·        The number of individuals funded by the CCGs that met the NHS eligibility criteria

The Independent review recommended that NHS Berkshire and the Unitary Authorities met regularly to use benchmarking data to monitor their performance both regionally and national trends. In order to address the recommendation the CCG’s appointed an analyst whose role would be to establish and maintain a database for the seven Berkshire CCG’s and prepare monthly reports.

Jan Evans referred the Commission to the Local Data for 2013/2014. The information showed how many CHC cases were funded by the CCGs across the country (graph  ...  view the full minutes text for item 57.

Purpose: To receive the latest period revenue and capital budget reports

Andy Walker introduced the Revenue and Capital Budget report to the Commission. Andy Walker stated that this was the second report as part of the financial reporting cycle for the 2013/14 financial year. The forecast revenue overspend for the 2013/14 financial year was £261k which was a worsened position from Quarter One when an underspend of £51k was reported.

Andy Walker stated that the Public Health service had found a saving of £80,000 within the first year due to using existing support services which helped towards delivering its schemes and which could be recharged to the service.

Councillor Zverko  asked why Appendix 1a on page 71 showed a forecast overspend of £75,500 on Capital Financing and Management. Gabrielle Esplin explained that this was because of a forecast shortfall in interest earned on the Council's investments because of a reduction in the interest rates being paid by the banks and building societies with which the Council deals.  Councillor Zverko also identified an error  in the table in Appendix 1b on page 73.  Gabrielle Esplin  explained that the column showing the budget remaining to be committed was incorrect.  She thanked Councillor Zverko for highlighting the error and advised that the report would be amended accordingly.

Councillor Beck questioned the status of the reintegration service as stated on page 68 of the agenda. Nick Carter advised that the Moorside and Riverside centres aimed to find more suitable premises.

Councillor Beck queried the reference on page 82 of the agenda to a payment being pursued from the Kennet School. Nick Carter advised that this referred to an issue with the school transferring to academy status and the leisure facilities onsite. Nick Carter advised that he could not provide any more information at this stage.

Councillor Roger Hunneman referred to paragraph 2.2 of the report which stated that expenditure across Children’s non-placement budgets and all other Community Services budgets were being deliberately slowed in order to address the projected overspend within the Directorate. He asked what effect this action would have on service users. Andy Walker responded that areas where there was a pressure for services would not be slowed and there would therefore be no detrimental effect to the most vulnerable clients. Andy Walker agreed to confirm the areas affected by the decision and report back to the Commission.

Councillor Beck noted that on page 56 of the agenda there was mention of GT. It was suggested that the GT site referred to the Gypsy & Traveller site at Four Houses Corner.

Councillor Simpson asked for an explanation of the ASC Risk Fund. Andy Walker explained that the fund was created within the service budget as a contingency for identified areas of risk.

Councillor Vickers asked whether the Council had considered the use of consultants to take the Market Street regeneration project forward and whether the expenditure had been committed within the 2013/14 budget. Nick Carter explained that the costs for the Market Street regeneration project had been identified within the 2013/14 budget. The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 58.

Purpose: To conduct a review of the Council’s Fair Access to Care Services Policy.

Councillor Webb introduced the Adult Social Care Eligibility Criteria review report to the Commission. The task group conducted the in-depth review over the course of 12 months which included an independent public consultation.

Councillor Webb talked the Commission through the report and directed them toward the task groups recommendations which they would be asked to consider;

1.      The Head of Adult Social Care should keep the Council’s Fair Access to Care Services eligibility criteria at ‘critical’ and continue to ensure that appropriate levels of funding remain for the provision of preventative services outside of that required for assessed care packages (currently £700,000 per year).

2.      The Head of Adult Social care should ensure, through annual review, that in its operation of the Fair Access to Care Services Policy the Council continues to comply with its statutory duties. In addition to any required policy changes, the reviews should incorporate an assessment of equality impact.

3.      The Head of Adult Social Care should monitor the effectiveness of the steps that have been taken to reduce both the time taken to complete Section 47 assessments and the backlog of those cases awaiting assessment. Additionally, a further action might be a cessation of the practise of the Access for All team fielding telephone calls for other social care teams and the allocation of more staff time for the completion of assessments.

4.      The Head of Adult Social Care should evaluate the operation of the Access for All team to ensure that its position within the organisational structure provides the most effective operational environment. Any changes to the role, formation or positioning of it should ensure that staff in this crucial team are appropriately trained, resourced, focussed and supported.

5.      The Head of Adult Social Care should continue to review and evaluate the effectiveness of the Multifunctional Assessment/Review Document to further improve its effectiveness and ensure that the administrative burden it necessarily imposes is kept to an absolute minimum.

6.      The Head of Adult Social Care should ensure that those completing the Multifunctional Assessment/Review Document understand that the information it contains will be used by the Resource Panel to make decisions on the provision of care. If necessary, training should be provided to ensure that the delays caused by incomplete or poorly completed forms are reduced.

7.      The Head of Adult Social Care should ensure that all staff undertaking social care assessments understand the need to keep those undergoing the process fully appraised of progress. This should ensure that expectations are managed and that dissatisfaction is resultantly kept to a minimum.

8.      The Head of Adult Social Care should ensure that the lessons drawn from the Transitions Project (which examined the period when people move from children’s social care to adult social care) are widely communicated and fully understood both by those going through it and the staff supporting them.

9.      The Head of Adult Social Care should undertake further work to test the perception of some stakeholders that some groups, regardless of the level  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.