Agenda item

This report provides: a description of local carers in Hammersmith & Fulham; the interim local results of the recent National Carers Survey, and other recent feedback from carers; the range of support services available to carers living in the borough and information on areas to improve services for carers in future.

Mike Rogers introduced the report, which provided: a description of local carers in Hammersmith & Fulham; the interim local results of the recent National Carers Survey and other  recent feedback from carers; the range of support services available to carers living in the borough; and information on areas to improve services for carers in future.

In the national ONS Census of 2011, 12,330 local residents had described themselves as providing unpaid care to a family member or a friend. The hours of care provided per week by carers in Hammersmith & Fulham were longer when compared with those for inner London, and the carers were more likely to live with the person for whom they cared.

Carers in Hammersmith & Fulham were more likely to be women, retired or not in paid work, most were age 50 plus, half of whom had a health condition themselves.

Carers providing 50 plus hours of care a week were more likely to live in the north of the borough, in College Park & Old Oak and Wormholt & White City ward, areas of relative deprivation and social housing. Fulham Broadway and Sands End also had higher rates of carers, compared with the borough average.

The Care Act 2014 provided new rights to carers and gave local authorities a duty to meet such needs. The report outlined how the Council intended to meet carers’ needs and address carers’ feedback. There had been some improvements in services for carers locally.

Alex Tambourides outlined the role of H&F Mind in providing services for carers over the previous three years and noted the improvement in services.

Mr Tambourides stated that there were a large number of carers looking after people with mental health problems, but the service was not engaging with that number. Whilst 1 in 4 carers were looking after someone with mental health problems, only 1 in 20 were reporting mental health problems themselves, indicating potential hidden mental health wellbeing issues.                                                                

Mr Tambourides agreed that carers should be involved in and consulted on decisions, although there were issues of confidentiality.

Mr Tambourides suggested that carers could be identified through GPs. Carers tended to feel a stigma and it was important to meet with other carers in the same situation.

Sarah Mitchell stated that Carers’ Network was a small local organisation supporting carers in Westminster and, for the previous year, Hammersmith & Fulham.

Ms Mitchell considered that there remained a lot more carers still to be reached. There had been a significant increase in carers over the previous year, a third of whom were new to caring. There were issues in respect of quality of life.

Ms Mitchell was concerned about the quality of advice and information for carers, particularly for those who did not have access to the internet. Provision was mostly in the centre and south of Hammersmith & Fulham. There was little provision in the north, although advice sessions had been held in College Park and Old Oak and Wormholt and White City, areas with the highest numbers of carers. An application had been submitted for trust funds to extend the sessions. Slightly lower numbers of BME (black and minority ethnic) carers were being reached, compared with people across the borough. Carers’ Network was working to reach out to community organisations.

Ms Mitchell referred to the implications of the Care Act and the importance of both physical and mental health. A health information day was being organised as part of Carers’ Week. The network had informed the Hammersmith & Fulham Primary Care Navigation Pilot, which would help to connect carers with support.

Mr Naylor raised concerns in respect of people identifying themselves as carers and the need for publication of the help available and how to access services. Carers were likely to seek help from the organisation most associated with the disability of the person for whom they were caring. 

Mr McVeigh noted that whilst the report provided information in respect of adult carers, young carers would not necessarily be known to social care services and that there could be a triangulation of numbers with other sources of data. Mr McVeigh commented on the role of local community resources, such as care centres, libraries and churches as a source of information and queried how carers were identified and received communications.

Mr Rogers responded that many carers preferred to receive information on a leaflet, rather than through the internet, and that a range of channels were being considered. The survey had focused on carers who had been assessed by the Council in the previous year.

In respect of the inclusion of carers in decision making, a third of carers had confirmed that they would like to be involved as far as possible, and this would be taken on board in designing the new assessments and implementation of the Care Act.

Mr Rogers stated that identification of carers was a challenge. Some BME carers were known to Adult Social Care. To raise awareness, information was being placed in external magazines, newsletters and other printed matter.

The new duties under the Care Act and the right of all carers to request an assessment, could mean that 700/800 additional local carers might come forward to be assessed.

Councillor Barlow commented that survey responses from 177 people were useful, but only a small proportion of the 12k plus carers in the borough. There was no support in the areas of the borough where most needed. Councillor Barlow suggested different ways of communication, such as through GPs and pharmacies.    

Selina Douglas noted a gap in the provision of information and advice. Adult Social Care would develop an information strategy over the next few months, in line with the requirements of the Care Act. Adult Social Care was working with the CCG to access their network and would work with the Carers’ Network to provide support in new locations.

Councillor Chumnery considered that more could be done in respect of Carers’ Week and that there needed to be better communications, including different locations such as community centres and working with other organisations, for example social landlords.

Councillor Lukey responded that Adult Social Care was keen to do more in Carers’ Week and to work with the Carers’ Network. The Council’s communications team was being used, together with partner organisations, and health champions. Housing needs of the people being cared for were considered, as part of the Council’s total responsibility, and a consumer group had been established to feed into the review of social housing policies.

Councillor Lukey stated that whilst the limitations of communication through the website were recognised, there was significant information on the People First website.

Councillor Lukey stated that Carers’ expertise in supporting each other, in addition to the hours spent as carers, was recognised. 

Councillor Fennimore added that it was really helpful for the Council in developing a digital strategy to know the preferred format for communication and whether people actually preferred leaflets or could be supported in the use of digital technology. 

Councillor Vaughan commented on respite services that carers either seemed to be dissatisfied or had not used the service and queried the likely impact of the Care Act on the number of carers coming forward. Mr Rogers responded that a national model predicted that over the first eighteen months there would be 700/800 additional carers identified in Hammersmith & Fulham. The helpfulness of carers’ services by type had excluded ‘does not apply to me’, and there had been a positive response from those who had received the service. In addition there was a Carers’ Network small grants scheme, which could help towards the cost of a holiday or other similar needs.

Councillor Vaughan invited the expert witnesses to make two final points.

Mr Tambourides emphasised the need for good resources to reach carers, currently only a small percentage were being reached, and the opportunity for GPs and other professionals who register patients to identify carers.

Ms Mitchell considered that some really useful suggestions had been made and good opportunities identified  in respect of communications, and specifically ward level initiatives. Resources were needed to raise awareness of services available to carers.

Councillor Vaughan summarised the key issues and recommendations.

1.    Adult Social Care needed to do more to identify carers, and a simple change in the GP registration process to promote self-identification was given as a good example.

2.    Communication needed to be improved and people asked why they wanted communication in a particular way. Suggestions included working with social landlords and increased use of Carers’ Week. 

3.    There needed to be increased support put in place in the north of the borough where support was most needed.

4.    Carers should be involved in decisions about persons cared for, within the bounds of confidentiality and dependent on the level of involvement wanted by the carer.

5.    There were some concerns in respect of the adequacy of respite care.

6.    A future discussion would be added to the work programme, with specific areas around the increase in the levels of support, consequent on the Care Act and the development of an information strategy and partnership working.