Agenda item

Purpose: To monitor the progress of Priority 5 set within the Council Strategy - Good at safeguarding children and vulnerable adults.

The Commission considered a report (Agenda Item 11) outlining the progress of delivery against the Council’s Strategy – Priority 5: Good at safeguarding Children and Vulnerable Adults.

Mac Heath, Head of Service for Children and Families Services, introduced the report and outlined the Key Performance Indicators detailed within Appendix A. He elaborated on those items which had been detailed in the exceptions report – Appendix B.

P&S1c&f01 – To reduce the percentage of posts that are filled by agency staff: Mac Heath explained that the service continued to work hard to address Social Worker recruitment and retention challenges. Reducing reliance on agency staff remained a top priority within the service and overall performance against the indicator was moving in the right direction.

Members heard that the service explored various ways to address the challenge but it was important to note that agency staff received higher pay and consequently any encouragement to join the Council, as a permanent member of staff, had to stand against the prospect of reduced wages.

P&s1c&f05 - Percentage of repeat referrals to Children’s services within 12 months of a previous referral: Mac Health outlined that such cases might return to the service due to changing circumstances within the home or a relationship. He advised that performance was heading in the right direction – below that of the comparator authorities and the national average.

For the avoidance of doubt, Rachael Wardell advised that the service expected to achieve a percentage within the target range and that deviance from this would warrant further investigation. The service did not drive performance to achieve targets which could introduce unwanted behaviours. It was expected that the performance levels might fluctuate but this would not generate concern so long as it fluctuated within the expected range; although the service aimed to achieve performance within the targeted range it was far more important to ensure safeguarding and support was the main priority overall.

Catalin Bogos, Performance, Research and Consultation Manager, advised that a revised benchmark range was agreed at Corporate Board and brought performance indicators in line with other Local Authorities.

Councillor Emma Webster asked whether the current benchmark considered the required performance levels in order to achieve a ‘Good’ rating by Ofsted. Mac Heath advised that the service obtained learning from previous inspections and compared performance against other Local Authorities in terms of ‘what Good looks like’. It was of paramount importance to ensure the service continued to act appropriately and promote good practice.

Members noted the remarks by Officers and requested that the terminology used within the report was revised – to clarify performance overall.

Councillor Webster concluded that the service was striving to achieve an Ofsted rating of ‘Good’ and the question remained – what should the service measure their performance against in order to achieve the rating.

P&s1c&f07 – To maintain a high percentage of (single) assessments being completed within 45 working days: Mac Heath stated that the measure considered cases from the first point of contact with the service.

He advised Members that the Q3 results for the measure showed a positive increase in the percentage of cases assessed within 45 working days – 96% as at January 2016. The service conducted daily scrutiny of single assessments which remained open and continued to monitor levels on a monthly basis and cumulatively for the purpose of annual targets.

P&s1c&f11 – To increase the percentage of children subject to a Child Protection (CP) Plan that have received a visit within the past 10 working days: Mac Heath advised that a statutory visit was expected within 10 working days of a CP plan being implemented. He advised that the Q3 results showed an increase to 90%. He emphasised that the situation was challenging, the number of children subject to CP plans had increased, but evidence showed an improving picture overall.

Mac Heath was confident that visits were conducted within the specified timescales but, he stressed, Officers had to record the visit in order to demonstrate that it had taken place. Mac Heath advised that CP visits would not be acknowledged until records had been updated. He advised that, with this stringent approach, the situation was improving.

Councillor Richard Somner requested that the number of cases brought through to the beginning of Q1 was detailed within the report to provide context.

Councillor Webster suggested that it might be useful to set a target which focused specifically on the speed of recordings. Mac Heath acknowledged the suggestion and stated that whilst the situation was improving he would be inclined to keep existing indictors but would be open to changes in due course.

P&s1c&f17 – Percentage of Looked After Children with Health Assessments on time: Mac Heath advised that the service worked in conjunction with Health staff and good progress had been made to date. The Q3 results indicated that 97% of LAC had had a Health Assessment which was testimony to the hard work of the team. The indicator was monitored in a variety of forums, including the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board, and would continue to be a focus area going forward.

P&s1c&f21 – Percentage of Care Leavers with Pathway Plans: Mac Heath stated that the level of engagement from Care Leavers varied which affected the ability to develop a Pathway Plan. He stressed that the young adults were not required to engage with the service to the same degree as other ages however, the team continued to encourage their participation. Q3 results indicated that the measure was improving – 95% of Care Leavers had Pathway Plans in place.

Rachael Wardell advised that there were specific groups for which a Pathway Plan would apply and that two of these specific groups already had 100% coverage. Every young person leaving care should have a Pathway Plan in place.

Mac Heath explained that a higher number of teenagers were entering care and this placed a pressure on services to provide Pathway Plans (where applicable) in order to increase independence.

P&s1c&f22 – Percentage of Looked After Children in family settings: Mac Heath stated that the performance level had improved since the end of Q1 which showed the benefits of the Social Workers recruitment strategy.

Members thanked Mac Heath for his presentation and welcomed Tandra Forster to present information regarding the performance of Adult Social Care Services.

Tandra Forster, Head of Adult Social Care, highlighted the exceptions reports detailed within Appendix B of the report.

OP2asc13 – Proportion of clients with Long Term Support (LTS) receiving a review in the past 12 months: Members were informed that the Q3 safeguarding statistics showed that 83% of clients with LTS had received a review in the past 12 months. Tandra Forster explained that approximately 1500 people were in receipt of LTS and the demand on services was increasing.

OP2asc15 - Proportion of people (65+) who were still at home 91 days after discharge from hospital into reablement/ rehabilitation services: Tandra Forster stated that this was an important indicator which measured care assistance services; the indicator was effective from the moment the client entered the reablement/rehabilitation service. Members heard that, on occasion, someone could be assessed for reablement and then have services provided but their health may deteriorate, pass away or return to hospital and as such it would be recorded that they had left the reablement/rehabilitation service.

The measure did not necessarily relate to safeguarding but was useful to monitor by the service. Tandra Forster advised that, going forward, the indicator would be repositioned under a more appropriate heading.

Members heard that the indicator measured a small cohort and was therefore prone to fluctuation. In response to questions asked by the Commission, Tandra Forster advised that the Department of Health specified the parameters of the measurement which the service was expected to follow.

P&S1asc04 – Percentage of care homes rated good or better by Care Quality Commissioning (CQC) in the area of “safe”: A recent CQC inspection rated Willows Edge as ‘Good’ but highlighted that in area ‘Safe’ it required improvement on the basis that:

·         The service was not always safe because there were not always sufficient staff to meet people’s needs;

·         The provider’s medicines procedures did not provide guidance to staff on the circumstances when medicines may be given covertly. However, individual guidelines were provided in one case where this might be necessary and appropriate ‘best interest agreements’ had been obtained.

Tandra Forster advised Members that, since the inspection, a number of remedial actions had been introduced. The service had requested a revisit by the CQC however, they were unable to accommodate the request due to limited resources and the need to prioritise higher risk sites. Tandra Forster reassured Members that the CQC did not consider Willows Edge to be at significant risk but until an inspection had taken place it was not possible to obtain a revised rating.

Councillor Emma Webster asked for more information regarding the temporary support from two additional staff. Tandra Forster advised that the increased staffing level reflected the additional needs of clients within Willows Edge. She explained that, through the assessment process, an individual may be suitable for placement however, sometimes more challenging needs may arise over time.

Councillor Alan Macro asked whether the CQC rating affected the service’s ability to place people at Willows Edge. Tandra Forster stated that the facility was considered ‘Good’ overall and there were no issues securing places for new clients. Rachael Wardell emphasised that the facility was rated as ‘Good’ and only ‘Required Improvement’ in some areas.

Members heard that it was not possible to know when the next CQC inspection could take place – due to the prioritisations made by CQC itself.

Councillor Webster highlighted the difference in the number of safeguarding indicators monitored by the Children and Families Services versus Adult Social Care services. Rachael Wardell advised that there were a higher number of statutory measures within Children’s Services which would be reflected in the number of indicators for each area.

Members stated that they would prefer to see recent statistics. Councillor Webster acknowledged the feedback and advised the Commission that she had raised the request already with Officers.

Resolved that:

1.    Catalin Bogos would provide the relevant national definitions associated with performance indicator P&s1c&f21;3

2.    The report be noted.