Agenda item

This report sets out the proposal for contract awards for new Home Care Services for people who meet Adult Social Care eligibility criteria in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.

The Committee received a report on the contract awards for new Home Care Services for people who met Adult Social Care eligibility criteria in Hammersmith & Fulham.

The Cabinet, at its meeting, on 7^th September had accepted the recommendation that three Home Care Service Contracts should be awarded. Letters would be sent to the new providers on the following day, so it was not possible to disclose their names.

Mrs Douglas highlighted the key significant changes in the model of care:

·         a requirement to pay the London Living Wage;

·         working towards the provision of low level health tasks through the integration of care over the duration of the contract;

·         investment in the workforce; and

·         electronic monitoring to record care delivery, safeguard customers and enable accurate billing.

The new contracts would provide a comprehensive service to meet the increasingly complex needs of customers. They would be based on improved outcomes for customers and there would be a new way of monitoring complaints. People were reluctant to complain and therefore a system was being piloted whereby people who had not wished to make a formal complaint were contacted to find out if the problem had been resolved.

Ms Murphy noted Healthwatch’s involvement in the project group and in collecting evidence, and that the Home Care Services contracts were an example of good partnership work. Ms Connelly stated that the contracts reflected the requirements of service users such as choice of tasks, flexibility and reliability and continuity of carer.

Ms Murphy stated that the next steps would be to move into the implementation phase, to manage the change and ensure clear communications. The project group would meet with providers in November. There would be some independent monitoring of contracts, including home visits, with follow up by the Safeguarding Board if necessary.

Mr Naylor stated that home care services were concentrated on people who were already in touch with the Council, and there was a need to explain access to those who were new to the system. Mrs Douglas responded that an information and advice strategy would develop a system wide approach of self-service to determine eligibility for services.  A joint strategy with Housing was being developed around sheltered accommodation. There would be a further piece of work with private landlords.

Mr McVeigh referred to the procurement changes set out in paragraph 4.18, and queried how input would be measured. Mrs Douglas responded that a multi-disciplinary team had assessed the tenders and the requirements were twofold: to ensure home care plans were appropriate and to assure quality of services. In line with feedback from service users, services would move away from the time and task model and be more flexible.

Ms Domb considered that there had not been much communication since 2012, and that there had been a closed group which did not involve service users. Ms Murphy responded that engagement would begin again that month and Healthwatch would hold a public meeting.  There had been a small group involved in the procurement, including the voluntary sector.

Mrs Douglas added that communications had had to be reduced during the procurement phase. The service specification had been developed in partnership and would now be taken forward by a smaller group. Service users would be involved throughout the process.

Ms Domb suggested that when telephoning service users, the first question should be whether the carer was in the room.

Councillor Perez Shepherd queried engagement with service users for whom English was not a first language. Mrs Douglas responded that the three contracts might not meet all service users’ needs, particularly demographic needs. Adult Social Care would work with local organisations. In addition, the three contractors could sub-contract on agreed terms to smaller contractors, who had not been able to bid for the contract themselves.

Mr Naylor queried who would advocate for those people who did not meet the qualifying criteria, but were in need of care and safeguarding from abuse. Mrs Douglas responded that there had been no change for Hammersmith & Fulham in the eligibility criteria. People who did not qualify would still be helped to get appropriate care and were still part of the safeguarding provisions. In addition, a number of schemes were being considered, such as use of a spare room and would be included in the advice and information strategy. There was already an advocacy service. People would be encouraged to have an assessment, as provided for in the Care Act.

Councillor Vaughan queried the projected overspend arising from payment of the London Living Wage. Mrs Douglas responded that this would be a growth item, and Adult Social Care would be working with the CCG to increase low level prevention.

Councillor Vaughan summarised the key points.

RESOLVED THAT:

1.    The developments, particularly the payment of the London Living Wage and the provision of work force training, which would provide benefits in recruitment and retention, were welcomed.

2.    An update report on delivering the ideas and aspirations and specifically in respect of continuity of carers should be provided to a future meeting.

3.    Officers were commended for the work done.

4.    The new contracts would require a good level of monitoring and the Committee would continue to scrutinise to understand the development, in qualitative terms and in-depth.

5.    The Committee recommended the development of a broader framework to include information on how to access the system.