PAPER D
|
SOCIAL SERVICES, HOUSING AND BENEFITS SELECT
COMMITTEE – 4 MARCH 2003 PROGRESS REPORT FROM THE HOME CARE TASK GROUP REPORT OF THE TASK GROUP CHAIRMAN |
REASON FOR SELECT COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION
To inform members of the issues looked at and identified
by the Task Group when reflecting on the overall state of the care provider
market.
|
ACTION REQUIRED BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE That the Committee note the views of the Task Group which are contained in the report (Appendix 1) and to support further exploration of other areas of care provision such as the residential care market, meals on wheels and the implications of the Fairer Charging Statutory guidance issued by the Department of Health To sanction the level of expenditure identified
within the overall content of the report |
BACKGROUND
Members will recall that they agreed to the
formation of the Task Group to look at the current market of care provision
whilst acknowledging effects of the current trend of commissioning personal
care as opposed to the previous reliance on domestic care. This is further compounded by the
legislative requirements of the National Care Standards Commission.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The Social Services Directorate have proposed for an
across the board fee of £11.00 per hour to be acknowledged and confirmed as the
standard payment for commissioned services in relation to day care
provision. This hourly amount would be
payable to both in-house and external providers. To cover this, a projected figure of £730,000 per annum has been
included on the formal bids list as submitted by the Social Services
Directorate.
OPERATIONAL IMPLICATIONS
It is
felt that the proposed fee of £11.00 per hour should enable employers to be
able to reward staff by way of a more appropriate remunerative process. This should enable the overall care provider
market to be able to sustain the existing level of commissioned service and
further enable the retention of the workforce.
The impact of not progressing the bid would see elements of the National
Care Standards Commission legislative requirements being unmet, with potential
de-registration of service providers.
Furthermore, the current recruitment difficulties would be further
exacerbated leading to the potential withdrawal from the market of existing
care provider businesses.
Contact: Pete
Scott, Head of Direct Services, 823407
D WILLIAMS
Task Group Chairman
APPENDIX 1
1.
INTRODUCTION
1.1.
Following
the Social Services Housing and Benefits Select Committee of 15 October 2002, a
Task Group was formed and subsequently met on three occasions to look at the
problems faced by and potential solutions to the direct care provision market.
2.
PROCESS ADOPTED
2.1
The
Group initially looked at the wider issues concerning the interface between
commissioning care management and provider services.
2.2
This
allowed appropriate documentation contained in the Social Services and Housing
Directorate Best Value Review Care Management and Commissioning (March 2001),
the Social Services and Housing Directorate Best Value Review of Community Care
Services for Older People and Physically Disabled Adults (March 2002) and the
Inspection of Social Care Services for Older People by Social Services
Inspectorate (June 2002) to be scrutinised.
2.3
From
this information base, the Group felt that a comparison exercise with an
authority considered similar to the Isle of Wight Council be progressed. From the sixteen authorities identified,
York Unitary Authority was chosen as an authority which was closest to the Isle
of Wight with regard to the number of households receiving intensive home care
per 1000 population aged 65+ (Appendix
2).
2.4
An
exercise was undertaken with regard to the issues of remuneration for care
industry comparison groups. The first
comparison relates to Social Services’ employees (Appendix
3) and the second comparison to non Local Authority related staff (Appendix 4).
2.5
The
group then considered unit cost data and looked at the information provided
through the Unit Costs of Health and Social Care publication collated during
2001 (Appendix 5).
2.6
The
views of service users and carers were thought to be of paramount importance
and the documentation provided following an inspection of Social Care Services
for Older People in June 2002 identified the following: -
2.6(i) ‘I am very grateful for the care
organised for me by my care manager ….. who is always most kind and
considerate.’
2.6(ii) ‘I am very pleased with the care
given me. All my carers are happy
friendly ladies and I look forward to seeing them and having a chat. I would be sorry to lose them.’
2.6(iii) ‘The
services in themselves are wonderful and I wouldn’t be able to find better in
another country.’
2.6(iv) ‘The
help I get from Wight Care – arranged for us by social services, is vital in
making it possible to carry on in our own home.’
Issues
of concern which were raised with the Inspectors at this time centred around
different carers being utilised to support need rather than the previous
practice of a dedicated carer being available.
2.7
Another
avenue of information gathering centred around the CIPFA Statistical
Information Services estimates for 2001/2002.
This allowed for comparison on issues of population, age group break
down, gross cost of care split by in-house provision and provision by others
and income from client contributions.
This showed that proportionally the Isle of Wight had more care provided
externally than the majority of other English Unitary Authorities and also that
proportionally the income generated from client contributions was at a higher
level than most other Unitary Authorities.
2.8
The
final area of information determined by the Group centred around information
obtained from exit interviews and why staff found it necessary to leave the
care profession. This detail is further
sanctioned following personal interface with a group of twenty carers still
currently employed by Wightcare Services (Appendix 6).