South Wales Regional Supporting People
Monitoring Officers Group
Meeting Held on 23rd June 2006
At 10.30am in the Phoenix Centre
Present
Rachel Evans (Chair) City and County of Swansea
Peter Field City and County of Swansea
Sarah Vye City and County of Swansea
Greg Round Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council
Emma O’Brien Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council
Christopher Davies Rhondda Cynon Taff Borough Council
Darren Daye Rhondda Cynon Taff Borough Council
Luci Claque Newport County Council
Julie Nichols Torfaen County Borough Council
Helen Twidle Ceredigion County Council
Gary Proven Ceredigion County Council
Allan Jones Carmarthenshire County Council
Neil Sutcliffe Cardiff City Council
Charlie Teare Cardiff City Council
Bethan Whitston Welsh Assembly
Apologies
Pat Allen
Phil Tipton
June Firth
Helen Swain
Gail Jones
1. Previous Minutes
Minutes of the last meeting agreed as a true and accurate account.
2. Matters Arising
GR noted that he is still chasing up costings for regional training on contracting and commissioning.
RE inquired if any member of the group was undertaking NVQ 4
JN asked for clarification on whether there would be a checklist drafted which would identify requirements under service aim two and three. The group agreed it was their intention to draw up a checklist for each service aim, however service aim two and three are not easy to define in a checklist format. RE stated that service aim one has been put into a checklist format and this would also be possible for service aim four.
3. The future of sheltered housing
CT explained to the group that there were ongoing discussions in Cardiff regarding sheltered housing. CT asked how other areas are approaching the review process and what their position is regarding the future of sheltered housing. CT noted that sheltered housing had been removed from supporting people in England. GR stated that sheltered housing should meet all the service aims as it is a model of supported housing. RE noted that initially in Swansea there was a huge reluctance from scheme managers and service users to undertake support plans, however once the process had been completed there had been positive feed back from scheme managers . The support planning process has been noted as useful in gaining a more detailed understanding of the needs of their service users. The group agreed that the support plans for sheltered housing should be simple. Greg recommended the support plans from Gwerin and Glamorgan and Gwent as good examples.
Julie explained that the strategic relevance of sheltered housing needs to be examined, along with the potential of floating support filling a significant gap in provision. Looking into the future and ensuring that service provision is shaped to meet those needs was considered important. It was noted that one provider has sent out health questionnaires to adults over 75 in an attempt to plan for future need. The group agreed that sheltered housing is a big player in meeting future need for older people, however it is also important to examine how sheltered housing fits into the bigger picture taking into consideration the range of other services available i.e. telecare, floating support.
4. Cross referencing Supporting People Service Aims with Centre for Sheltered Housing Studies Codes of Practice
Swansea is encouraging providers in Sheltered Housing to gain external verification methods which can either passport them through the review process or result in the provider receiving a lighter touch review.
One provider in Swansea has attained accreditation from the Centre for Sheltered Housing Studies and were requested to cross reference each individual code of practice with each service aim. RE commended the piece of work and thought it would be useful to share with the monitoring group.
RE stated that encouraging providers to attain a code of practice which is geared around sheltered housing can avoid duplication and also allow monitoring officers to focus resources on more risky providers.
It was noted that within a Telecare Conference in Margam a new grant of up to 9 Million was announced for the development of telecare services. The grant is for capital only, and concern was expressed that successful RSL’s may come to the L.A. for revenue.
5. Supporting People Service Aim Four
Service Aim Four : That people who access the project and have their needs met in a planned way through direct (project) and indirect (other parties) support.
The following points were raised regarding this service aim .
§ Systems for referral and assessment should include policies as well as procedures and should also include an appeals process.
§ Records maintained of individuals who have not been successful in accessing the project can help to identify unmet need, assist in analysing and understanding needs providing evidence to reconfigure and reshape services.
§ It was agreed that the support plans should be reviewed within a minimum of 12 months.
§ It was decided that the wording which states “ support plans should reflect past and present skills “ should be altered to “support plans should build on past and present skills”
§ The support plan should provide a statement on what support is provided for service users when they are in hospital.
§ It was agreed that service users should be offered their support plans rather than automatically be provided with their support plans.
§ Discussion arose regarding provision of information on outcomes, while it was of agreed importance by the group it was felt that the statement wasn’t clear enough. It was agreed that the statement should be altered to read “ there is clear and comprehensive monitoring information on any outcomes linked to the support plan “
§ It was agreed that it would be beneficial to add the following points to the checklist :
- Personal details should be kept on the service user file
- There are information sharing protocols on risk
A revised checklist is attached with the minutes.
6. “Service Review and Inspection “ latest WAG guidance
It was noted that the guidance links to the document “Through many eyes “which has not yet been published. It was therefore decided to refer this discussion to the next SPMOG meeting. It was suggested that it would be useful to go through the guidance together in a similar way the group approaches discussion around the service aims.
7. “Reviewing the Review “ feedback from a one day event held in Swansea with providers reflecting on the Initial Service Review process.
RE distributed feedback from a review day held in Swansea.
The supporting people team invited all providers who were involved in reviews to a one day event to discuss the review process. The event gave everyone an opportunity to provide feedback on their experience of the review process. Providers were divided into groups and discussed what they considered were the strengths and weaknesses of the process, which aspects were beneficial, how the review process could be improved and become more meaningful.
8. Finance Group Feedback
Feedback from his group was provided. Timetables for the next benchmarking meeting will be set by September.
In the next mini spin it will be decided what lead officers feel about the group in relation to where the information is feeding into.
A checklist of service aim 9 will be developed and presented by this group
9. Joint Social Care and Supporting People Monitoring Group
Contact to be made with Sue Watts in relation to the future of this group
10. Gwent Officers Group Feedback
JN explained that the Gwent Officers group has recently developed a document detailing allowable activities for their eligibility criteria.
JN also informed the group that they have developed a small provider / alarm review methodology. JN distributed a copy which was noted as concise and considered useful by the group.
Further details and copies of both documents are available on the Torfaen website.
JN informed the group that a monitoring database is under development. Information from the database will be analysed and used to inform future commissioning.
RE stated that Swansea has also sent out questionnaires to providers on outcomes.
11. Any other Business
RE distributed details of a new service aim developed in Swansea relating to Strategic Governance and Partnership. RE explained that this has been drafted by Swansea as it was felt that the current service aims don’t provide a sufficient level of detail to determine strategic relevance. It was stated that the details could be a useful information gathering process and could be utilized to compare organizations in a tendering process.
The group agreed that it was a useful document but expressed concern at the introduction of a new service aim as certain requirements may be too difficult for some providers to achieve.
GR distributed information and a booking form for the National Commission and Contracting Conference which will be held on 18th and 19th September 2006.
RE informed the group of changes to H.M.O. regulations which are being introduced on 30th June 2006. It was noted that this may have implications for some providers and may capture smaller providers previously excluded.
RE noted that she had been the Chair of the group for over a year and invited expressions of interest from the membership to take over the role. No other member of the group nominated themselves as an alternative to take over the role and therefore RE agreed to continue as Chair.
12. Next Meeting
6th October 2006 at 10.30am