Agenda item

This report presents the findings of The Older People’s Commission (OPC) formed in November 2017 to examine ways of improving the quality of life for all older residents and making Hammersmith and Fulham (H&F) the best borough in which to grow older.

Mr Ian Cassidy provided apologies on behalf of the Chair of the Older Peoples Commission (OPC), Bryan Naylor.  Mr Cassidy provided background to the report, which had managed to achieve significant levels of engagement, working with local organisations, the third sector and residents.  Approximately 500 responses had been received, both through online access, in-depth interviews and qualitative focus groups. 

The report benefitted greatly from the quality of the engagement and reflected an authentic voice.  Satisfaction varied, with those in the 55+ group, expressing relatively greater satisfaction, compared to the over 75+.  This could be attributed to differences in generational outlook, or, the perception that those in the lower age bracket did not consider themselves to be ‘old’.

One of the recommendations was to consider increasing Council Tax by adding a social care precept to help alleviate financial pressure.  Also highlighted were shared concerns with the Disabled Peoples Commission.  In line with the current drive to embed coproduction, the OPC felt that an older people’s council champion should be appointed, together with an older people’s board. 

Rosalind Duhs, OPC commissioner explained that while there was provision within LBHF that could address social isolation and loneliness (SIL), information about this was not well communicated or co-ordinated.  Marilyn Mackie, OPC Commissioner referred the Committee to the Chair’s comments in the forward to the report.  Older people were not “passive recipients of services”; their breadth of knowledge and expertise made them a valued and much underutilised resource.

Councillor Coleman commended the report as well written, with challenging recommendations.  The report would be considered by Cabinet and work would commence on how the recommendations could be implemented, in conjunction with other areas of work such as SIL, health and wellbeing.  Councillor Coleman thanked members of the Commission for their commitment and excellent work in producing the report, and looked forward to working with them, in taking forward recommendations.

The report was widely regarding as exceptional, offering a diverse and unique perspective, without patronising.  Co-optee Victoria Brignell welcomed the report, and commended its view that older people were an asset, and not passive victims having things imposed on them, and that older people had a lot to offer, in common with people with disabilities.  She suggested that if the recommendation for a social care precept was implemented, it should be ring-fenced.

In considering the 40% rate of overall satisfaction, Mr Cassidy confirmed that he could provide the Committee with the raw data, which could offer clarity on the possible underlying factors of 60% indicating dissatisfaction. Ms Mackie elaborated that the recommendations were formulated in response to expressions of dissatisfaction. 

Councillor Caleb-Landy welcomed the report, observing that the recommendations were sensible, well-considered, and aligned closely with those of the DPC.  He asked if it was possible for these to be more readily achievable, if they were to be combined.  Councillor Richardson commended the report for its approach to recording such diverse perspectives and asked about the possible timeframe for implementation.  Councillor Coleman responded that the DPC report had focused on specific recommendations but largely were largely about how the Council operated. The focus on co-production was an approach that underpinned broader, high level policy reports.  The OPC report focused on more practical aspects, with specific recommendations.  In terms of implementation, co-production was the first step, which if successful, would lay the foundation for meeting the needs of everyone. 

Councillor Richardson commented that some recommendations were relatively straight forward to implement, for example, providing better and accessible forms of communication on noticeboards. Interestingly, it was reported that there were higher levels of satisfaction expressed by those living in sheltered accommodation, compared to those in Council housing.  Councillor Coleman expanded further, commenting that the specific needs of older people should be considered in the context of the redevelopment of service provision.  To illustrate, the Council was currently considering the provision of housing repair services. There were plans to meet with different resident groups, including those in sheltered housing. 

Councillor Bora Kwon, expressed regret that Mr Naylor had been unable to attend, anticipating the presentation of what would have powerful voice advocating the views of older people. She asked if it was feasible to approach organisations and charities in the Borough about funding.  Councillor Coleman concurred, highlighting that the report also reflected on the way in which the Council funded the third sector.  It was important to support organisations in the third sector; particularly where they could provide engaging activities and continuity of provision. 

Mr Cassidy acknowledged that meaningful activity was primarily sought after, the challenging being to qualitatively improve on what was currently on offer to older people.  By contrast, research had indicated that befriending services were not regarded in the same way. 

Councillor Umeh welcomed the report and asked how the approach to SIL would address language and cultural barriers for BAME and LGBQT which might prevent older people from accessing provision.  Ms Mackie explained that the Commission had gone to great lengths to speak to communities whose first language was not English, covering many diverse groups.  The Chair of the Commission would have able to elaborate further, but this had been a big and rewarding experience for members of the Commission.

Jim Grealy referenced an earlier point regarding social prescribing and ways by which the CCG could be encouraged to develop a broader and deeper understanding of the LBHF population demographic.  The Borough was relatively young but the CCG did not include qualitative associations in their perspective.  Focusing on the introduction to the report, he observed that older people found it increasingly difficult to access primary care, more so than before.  He suggested that a meeting with the CCG be convened to discuss the report.  It was recognised that it was more efficient to extend GP appointment slots to accommodate discussion of multiple ailments than to return for multiple appointments, when considered in the context of the report.   The qualitative data contained in the report created greater resonance than the generalised empirical data relied upon by the CCG. 

Merrill Hammer suggested that further consideration should be given to “becoming older people” as there was no single group of older people. The issues of ‘becoming older people’ and health needs, was a concern which needed wider publicity and engagement.

Mr Cassidy offered to facilitate the report through the older people’s wellbeing workstream with the CCG and take it to their next meeting on transport.  Mr Grealy suggested that the most helpful forum for this might be a round table discussion.  The following actions were agreed:

1.      Ian Cassidy to facilitate the OPC report to the CCG;

2.   The report to be widely circulated, and provided to organisations such as Save Our Hospitals, and, CCG patient reference groups, as determined by the Commission;

3.   To ensure that the report feeds into the NHS consultation on digital working;

4.   To highlight concerns around how older people accessed primary care appointments, given the number of potential GP closures, practice consolidation or hub closures, with travel to these appointments being a primary concern; and

5.   Officers to explore the feasibility of setting up a sub-group of the Committee to meet with the CCG and members of the Commission;

6.   To identify and consider wider engagement opportunities to promote and publicise the findings of the report.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.