Contact: Nidhi Patil
No. | Item |
---|---|
Minutes of the meeting held on 18 July 2024 Decision: 1.1. RESOLVED: that the minutes of the last meeting be agreed as a true record. Minutes: 1.1. It was noted that the financial information and case studies requested in relation to the Empowering Lewisham Programme had been circulated last week. 1.2. RESOLVED: that the minutes of the last meeting be agreed as a true record. |
|
Declarations of interest Decision:
2.1. Councillor Jacq Paschoud, attending under standing orders, declared a personal interest as she had a close family member in receipt of a care package from Lewisham Social Care.
Minutes:
2.1. Councillor Jacq Paschoud, attending under standing orders, declared a personal interest as she had a close family member in receipt of a care package from Lewisham Social Care.
|
|
Decision: RESOLVED: That · the report be noted. · the Committee receive regular written updates on the progress of co-production efforts in Adult Social Care. Minutes: Tom Brown (Executive Director for Adult Social Care and Health) and Andrea Benson (Service Improvement and Assurance Manager) introduced the report. This was followed by questions from the Committee members. The following key points were noted:
3.1. Adult Social Care (ASC) was collaborating with the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) to develop an infrastructure and approach for co-production across the ASC service, aiming to embed it in all operations. This report summarised key findings to date, highlighted future areas for development, and outlined current challenges and risks. 3.2. The Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) was a non-profit organisation that worked with both local authorities and the social care provider market to raise standards and achieve excellence. 3.3. SCIE’s resident workshops underscored the need for the Council to adapt its resident engagement methods based on the diverse needs of individuals and communities, as there was no one-size-fits-all solution. 3.4. Officers noted that this work was now moving towards exploring a less formal approach to resident engagement. Discussions were underway with Sydenham Gardens to explore using their facility for engaging people through shared activities in a less formal setting. Additionally, evening resident engagement sessions were considered important to accommodate residents with daytime commitments, enabling broader participation. 3.5. The workshops conducted by SCIE emphasised a fundamental shift from a traditional service delivery model, where services were ‘done for’ people, to a co-production model, where services were ‘done with’ people. This shift was seen as essential for fostering genuine collaboration. Currently, there was no formal mechanism to measure this mindset shift; the focus remained on listening to all participants and stakeholders. However, future efforts would explore methods to gauge this change. 3.6. ASC had committed £95,000 to SCIE for an 18-month period beginning April 2023. This investment covered consultancy, training, workshop facilitation, and support for implementing co-production practices within ASC. When asked about demonstrating value for money, officers indicated this would be measured through both qualitative outcomes, like residents feeling empowered to collaborate with the Council, and quantitative metrics, such as improved commissioning specifications and enhanced service delivery. Success would also be reflected in the diversity of voices engaged in the co-production process, signalling that people felt heard and respected. Additional metrics in the contract included developing a co-production toolkit and framework. 3.7. Healthwatch Lewisham commended the co-production efforts and the progress achieved thus far. 3.8. Officers shared that insights from this co-production work would be applied across various council service areas, including children’s services, community development, housing, etc. They noted the benefits of a unified council-wide approach to co-production. 3.9. In the workshops, lack of trust between local authorities and the community was identified as a significant barrier. Some participants felt that engagement efforts were more of a ‘tick-box’ exercise than genuine attempts to involve service users and carers in decision-making. However, the Council was actively making efforts to assuage these concerns by reaching out to residents through various channels, including voluntary sector groups, newsletters, leaflets (both physical and digital), and ... view the full minutes text for item 3. |
|
Ensuring Unpaid Carers are visible, valued and supported Additional documents: Decision: RESOLVED: · That the Committee receive an update in the future on: o the progress of the data transfer process being undertaken due to the transition from previous service provider to new service provider- Imago Community. o provision in schools for young carers.
Minutes: Tristan Brice (Joint Commissioning Lead Community Support and Care) introduced the report. This was followed by a discussion with the Committee members. The following key points were noted:
4.1. The key points from the presentation were highlighted. 4.2. Councillor Laura Cunningham addressed the Committee in her capacity as Cabinet Advisor. She outlined that there were two strands to improving the Council’s support to unpaid carers. First, the delivery partner Imago had been tasked with reaching out to as many carers as possible by maximising outreach efforts. Councillor Cunningham emphasised the importance of getting the word out- both through Imago and other channels- that this support package was available for unpaid carers. Expanding awareness was key to making this support accessible to everyone who might benefit from it. The second strand involved the Carers Forum, a platform for unpaid carers to voice their concerns and needs. This forum was in its early stages, having held four monthly meetings so far, but its purpose was to give carers a space to discuss the issues they found most pressing. A small steering group was actively shaping these meetings to reflect carers’ priorities, and the forum’s registered participants had grown to around 400 and continued to expand. 4.3. The Committee discussed the need to address cultural and language barriers for carers accessing support. It was noted that reaching carers across all communities was vital, and that faith organisations could play a significant role in supporting unpaid carers. Officers shared that the steering group for the carers forum was diverse to promote inclusion. While the carers hub was currently located at Glassmill Leisure centre, other venues to engage with carers were being considered to enhance accessibility. Officers also acknowledged that in some communities, family care was viewed as a traditional responsibility rather than as an unpaid caregiving role, so outreach efforts also needed to focus on raising awareness around what constitutes an unpaid carer. 4.4. Recognising that unpaid carers often juggle work, caregiving, and other responsibilities, the Committee stressed the importance of making support streamlined and accessible to fit their schedules. 4.5. The Committee highlighted the importance of gathering input from a diverse group of carers, as more varied perspectives would lead to more inclusive and effective solutions. 4.6. The sustainability of funding for unpaid carers’ support was also discussed. Under the Imago contract, any unpaid carer in need was entitled to services, which included bereavement and counselling support seven days a week. The Council acknowledged the importance of sustaining this support even in a tight budgetary context. The Carers Forum had been established even though there was no dedicated budget for it. It was hoped that the forum could evolve similarly to POSAC (Positive Aging Council), with an established role in the Council’s ongoing work. 4.7. A Committee member enquired about the data loss that occurred while transitioning to the new service provider, Imago. They sought details on the extent of this loss and the measures being taken to address it. Officers clarified that ... view the full minutes text for item 4. |
|
Adult Social Care Performance Review Presentation provided. Decision: RESOLVED: That · the presentation be noted.
Minutes: Tom Brown (Executive Director of Adult Social Care and Health) introduced the report. This was followed by questions from the Committee members. The following key points were noted:
5.1. The key points from the presentation were highlighted. The Committee suspended standing orders. 5.2. The Committee discussed concerns over only 42.8% of service users reporting adequate social contact, highlighting issues of isolation, particularly among older adults whose partners had passed away or whose families had moved away. While the Council aimed to foster social connections, it faced resource limitations in providing high levels of social contact. However, during care assessments, officers worked with service users to identify existing social connections, whether through faith communities or distant family. Efforts were consistently made to maintain these connections, and often informal partnerships with the voluntary sector also helped support these social ties. 5.3. The presentation noted that only 26.6% of carers were satisfied with social services and the support provided to the people they care for. The Committee expressed concern over this figure, enquiring about efforts to improve it. Officers acknowledged that Lewisham’s support for carers had historically been insufficient, which was part of the rationale for transitioning to a new contract for carer services. While immediate improvements were not expected, officers noted that some gradual positive changes were beginning to emerge. 5.4. Committee members enquired about monitoring and evaluating partner agencies or contracted providers who deliver care services, as well as ensuring they provide appropriate staff straining and compensation. Officers explained that initial oversight for regulated services like care homes came through the Care Quality Commission (CQC). The Council’s contracts with care providers included pay conditions, such as the London Living Wage and occupational sick pay. Lewisham had also committed to the UNISON Ethical Care Charter, and the Cabinet Member for Health, Wellbeing and Adult Social Care conducted branch visits to hear directly from staff, who could also connect with him through trade unions to raise concerns. Carers and family members of service users also provided valuable feedback, alerting officers if specific services encountered issues. 5.5. The importance of the Lay Visitor scheme was underscored, which offered independent peer monitoring of residential care homes. Efforts were underway to re-establish this scheme, which had been paused following the retirement of a key officer. The Cabinet Member for Health, Wellbeing and Adult Social Care encouraged Committee members to visit and build relationships with the care homes in their wards. 5.6. Committee members asked whether the Council could require private residential homes to pay the London Living Wage when placing residents. They were informed that this was not feasible, and that spot rates were used instead. Additionally, a third of placements in private residential homes were outside of Lewisham and even outside London, making the London Living Wage inapplicable. The Council also lacked block contracts with these providers, meaning it had limited influence over pay structures, particularly since homes often served residents from various boroughs with differing financial arrangements. 5.7. The Committee discussed the possibility of ... view the full minutes text for item 5. |
|
Select Committee Work Programme Additional documents:
Decision: RESOLVED: · That the agenda for the Committee meeting in November 2024 be agreed. Minutes: 6.1. The Committee considered the work programme report. RESOLVED: · That the agenda for the Committee meeting in November 2024 be agreed. |