Birmingham City Council Health and Social Care

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL

HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

TUESDAY, 17 JULY 2018 AT 10:00 HOURS IN COMMITTEE ROOMS 3 & 4, COUNCIL HOUSE, VICTORIA SQUARE, BIRMINGHAM, B1 1BB

A G E N D A

1 NOTICE OF RECORDING/WEBCAST

The Chairman to advise/meeting to note that this meeting will be webcast for live or subsequent broadcast via the Council's Internet site (www.civico.net/birmingham) and that members of the press/public may record and take photographs except where there are confidential or exempt items.

2 APOLOGIES

3 DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS

Members are reminded that they must declare all relevant pecuniary and non pecuniary interests arising from any business to be discussed at this meeting. If a disclosable pecuniary interest is declared a Member must not speak or take part in that agenda item. Any declarations will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.

4 ACTIONS NOTES/ISSUES ARISING 3 - 8 To confirm the action notes of the meeting held on 19 June 2018.

5 RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGE OF RISING OBESITY IN 9 - 14 CHILDHOOD

Dennis Wilkes, Assistant Director of Public Health.

6 YOUNGER ADULTS DAY SERVICE CONSOLIDATION - LESSONS 15 - 28 LEARNT

Melanie Brooks, Interim Assistant Director, Community Services, Social Care and Health.

Page 1 of 74 7 ADULT SOCIAL CARE PERFORMANCE MONITORING - MAY 2018 29 - 66 Mike Walsh, Head of Service - Intelligence, Strategy & Prioritisation, Commissioning Centre of Excellence.

8 WORK PROGRAMME - JULY 2018 67 - 74 For discussion.

9 REQUEST(S) FOR CALL IN/COUNCILLOR CALL FOR ACTION/PETITIONS RECEIVED (IF ANY)

To consider any request for call in/councillor call for action/petitions (if received).

10 OTHER URGENT BUSINESS

To consider any items of business by reason of special circumstances (to be specified) that in the opinion of the Chairman are matters of urgency.

11 AUTHORITY TO CHAIRMAN AND OFFICERS

Chairman to move:-

'In an urgent situation between meetings, the Chairman jointly with the relevant Chief Officer has authority to act on behalf of the Committee'.

Page 2 of 74 BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL

HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE O&S COMMITTEE

1000 hours on 19th June 2018, Committee Rooms 3 & 4 – Actions Present: Councillor Rob Pocock (Chair) Councillors Akhlaq Ahmed, Nicky Brennan, Mick Brown, Peter Fowler, Chauhdry Rashid and Suzanne Webb

Also Present: Paul Sherriff, Director of Organisational Developments & Partnerships, Birmingham & Solihull Clinical Commissioning Group Gemma Coldicott, Head of Communications & Engagement, Birmingham & Solihull Clinical Commissioning Group Andy Cave, Chief Executive, Healthwatch Birmingham Melanie Brooks, Interim Assistant Director, Community Services, Adult Social Care and Health Dennis Wilkes, Assistant Director, Public Health Mike Walsh, Head of Service – Intelligence, Strategy & Prioritisation, Commissioning Centre of Excellence ‘ahel O Coo, Dieto of Plaig ad Pefoae, Biigha ad Solihull Clinical Commissioning Group Rose Kiely, Overview & Scrutiny Manager, Scrutiny Office Gail Sadler, Scrutiny Officer, Scrutiny Office

1. INFORMAL SESSION

The committee received presentations from each of the following organisations/departments and actions are set out below:- Birmingham and Solihull Clinical Commissioning Group  A lik to the Kigs Fud ideo Ho does the NHS i Eglad ok? to be circulated to the committee.  The Healthath Biigha ‘eie of The uet patiet ad puli involvement practice of the merging Birmingham South Central, Birmingham CossCit ad Solihull Cliial Coissioig Goups to e iulated to the committee.  Is the STP aageet okig fo West Biigha? is a ite that the Committee may wish to schedule on the work programme.

1 Page 3 of 74 Healthwatch Birmingham  Healthwatch Birmingham published 3 videos last year which should be circulated to the committee. These are:- o About Healthwatch Birmingham. o How to share your health and social care experiences with Healthwatch Birmingham. o Making your views count: how Healthwatch Birmingham uses patient experience.  The committee were advised that the Healthwatch Birmingham Annual Report will be published next month and copies emailed to the committee. Adult Social Care & Health – Members Briefing  Mees ee told aout a ue of eies/e-design of services including the Enablement Service, Day Opportunities, Shared Lives and the Ageing Well Programme which the committee may wish to include on the work programme.  A op of the Adult Soial Cae ad Health Dietoate Ipoeet ad Business Plan 2017 – to e iulated to the oittee. Public Health The committee was advised that Becky Pollard had been appointed as the new Interim Director of Public Health. It was agreed that Public Health would flag-up areas of concern which the committee would need to be aware of. Adult Social Care & Health Performance Monitoring  It was agreed that performance monitoring data would be presented to the committee on a quarterly basis.  Councillor Suzanne Webb said she has a number of questions regarding the data that had been presented in the report and would contact Mike Walsh directly. Birmingham and Solihull Sustainability and Transformation Partnership  It as ageed that a ite o The Outoe of the STP Egageet Pogae should e sheduled o the ok pogae fo Otoe. Health & Social Care O&S Work Programme 2018/19  A copy of the Care Quality Commission Local System Review Report to be circulated to the committee.  A copy of the Homeless Health Scrutiny Report to be circulated to new members.  A ite o the Ealeet Seie to e added to the ites fo sheduling on the work programme.

2 Page 4 of 74 2. APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE AND CHAIR

RESOLVED: Mees oted the esolutio of the Cit Couil appoitig the Coittee, Chai and Members to serve on the Committee for the period ending with the Annual Meeting of the City Council 2019.

3. ELECTION OF DEPUTY CHAIR

RESOLVED: Councillor Mick Brown was elected as Deputy Chair to substitute for the Chair if absent.

4. APOLOGIES

Councillor Saddak Miah.

5. ACTION NOTES/ISSUES ARISING

The action notes of the meeting held on 20th March 2018 were noted.

6. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Members were reminded that they must declare all relevant pecuniary interests and non-pecuniary interests relating to any items of business to be discussed at the meeting. If a pecuniary interest is declared a Member must not speak to take part in that agenda item. Any declarations will be recorded in the action notes of the meeting. RESOLVED: None.

7. TERMS OF REFERENCE

To fulfil the functions of an Overview and Scrutiny Committee as they relate to any policies, services and activities concerning adult safeguarding, social care and public health; and to discharge the relevant overview and scrutiny role set out in the National Health Service Act 2006 as amended by the Health and Social Care Act 2012, including:  The appointment of Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committees with neighbouring authorities; and  The exercise of the power to make referrals of contested service reconfigurations to the Secretary of State as previously delegated to the Health and Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee by the Council. RESOLVED: Noted.

3 Page 5 of 74 8. JOINT HEALTH OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEES – APPOINTMENTS Birmingham and Sandwell Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (5 Members) Labour (3); Conservative (1); Liberal Democrat (1) Labour Conservative Liberal Democrat Councillor Rob Pocock Councillor Suzanne Webb Councillor Paul Tilsley Councillor Mick Brown Councillor Chauhdry Rashid Birmingham and Solihull Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (7 Members) Labour (5); Conservative (2) Labour Conservative Councillor Rob Pocock Councillor Peter Fowler Councillor Mick Brown Councillor Suzanne Webb Councillor Akhlaq Ahmed Councillor Nicky Brennan Councillor Saddak Miah RESOLVED: The Committee agreed to the appointments to the Joint Health Overview and Scrutiny Committees including Councillor Rob Pocock as Joint Chair.

9. DATES OF MEETINGS

RESOLVED:  The Committee agreed that meetings should be held at 1000 hours on the following Tuesdays in the Council House:- 2018 2019 17 July 22 January 18 September 19 February 16 October 19 March 20 November 16 April 18 December 21 May  The Committee also approved Tuesdays at 1000am hours as a suitable day and time each week for any additional meetings required to consider euests fo all i hih a e lodged i espet of Eeutie deisios.

4 Page 6 of 74 10. REQUEST(S) FOR CALL IN/COUNCILLOR CALL FOR ACTION/PETITIONS

None

11. OTHER URGENT BUSINESS

None

12. AUTHORITY TO CHAIRMAN AND OFFICERS

RESOLVED:- That in an urgent situation between meetings the Chair, jointly with the relevant Chief Officer, has authority to act on behalf of the Committee. ______The meeting ended at 1235 hours.

5 Page 7 of 74

Page 8 of 74 RESPONDING TO THE CHALLENGE OF RISING OBESITY IN CHILDHOOD

THE BIRMINGHAM APPROACH 2018-2021

REPORT TO: HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

FROM: DENNIS WILKES

Assistant Director of Public Health

DATE: 17 JULY 2018

1. PURPOSE This report describes the developing strategic approach to tackle the rising levels of obesity in children in Birmingham. It was prompted by a discussion with the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in January 2018 about child poverty where the link with child obesity was recognised. The committee was particularly interested in efforts being made in the Early Years phase, 0-5 years of age. 2. INTRODUCTION Compared to other UK core-cities, Birmingham has one of the highest rates of childhood obesity. Our rates have been consistently above national average since 2006/7 (Figure 2.1). The most recent figures show that 11.5% of 5 year-olds, and 25% of 11 year-old children in Birmingham are classed as obese (National Child Measurement Programme, 2016-17). However, these rates only tell part of the story. We know the risk of obesity is even greater in our most deprived communities and, more importantly, this gap has been widening over time. Figure 2.1: Prevalence of childhood obesity in Birmingham overtime

Page 9 of 74 Page 1 of 5

3. ISSUES Our opportunities for change Relying on children and families to change their behaviour has been difficult and ineffective. The future direction should be more about changing the environmental and social influences in order to make the ‘healthy choice the easy choice’ There are systematic biases in the way people choose what and when to eat or be active, even when they have all the information and understanding they need. Although information about health is important, it is not enough to change people’s behaviour because we all fail to act on it in a rational matter. This is why a review of interventions from across Europe found that public information campaigns might influence awareness and intention without changing outcomes or actual behaviour1. The gap between people’s stated intentions and behaviour has been studied through countless experiments over the decades and is widely deployed in the world of marketing. More recently public policy has become part of this debate. The term behavioural economics is often used to describe the science of how and why we make seemingly irrational choices. Some of the more relevant insights are: a) We prefer short-term rewards and feedback and undervalue things which improve our future. This bias is especially strong when something is available in the here and now. b) Framing choices, such as our preference for the middle option or avoiding a loss, strongly influence buying behaviour. Retailers and fast food outlets own the environment or ‘choice architecture’ in their stores and use this to influence our choices. c) Rational choice and self-control requires effort which is easily exhausted and affected by the environment, time of day or what we have just been doing. The practical application of these insights in Public Health interventions results in ‘nudges’ which allow free choice but try to encourage those actions likely to be in the persons true best interest. Examples of such nudges include: i. Photographs of vegetables on school lunch trays or footsteps on staircases ii. Using tracking mechanisms/apps to give immediate feedback on success or progress towards a goal iii. Smaller plate sizes reduce consumption iv. Asking patients to write down appointment times themselves rather than having it done for them, showing commitment and decreasing ‘no shows’. Nudges are often low cost and designed to change behaviour rather than intention. However, the complexity of the situation means that no single nudge will solve the

1 Perez-Cueto FJA, Aschemann-Witzel J , Shankar B, et al. (2012) Assessment of evaluations made to healthy eating policies in Europe: a review within the EATWELL Project. Public Health Nutrition 15, 1489–1496

Page 10 of 74 Page 2 of 5

problem of childhood obesity; it is merely a tool to use to make every environment less obesogenic. The implication of this is that by adjusting the way the most important moments of choice are presented to people we can counteract some of the biases which lead to irrationally unhealthy actions. Some environments can be more easily adjusted (such as school canteens) and others require the cooperation or compliance of outside interests (such take away ordering processes or in-store food shopping). In each case, rather than counteracting free choice, public policy is seeking to compensate for the biases which prevent us exercising that choice rationally in the first place. 4. CURRENT APPROACHES Many people will bemoan the shift of the emphasis towards the environmental approaches and away from the child or family weight management programmes. These programmes attempt to educate the individuals to make healthier choices and provide a small amount of practice time and space. These have been the core of the Birmingham approach for the past ten years. If 11% of children aged 4 years in Reception classes in Birmingham are obese, it is clear that this has its origins in the patterns of dietary intake and physical activity in the first years of life. The current approaches to try and improve the balance between calorie intake and physical activity to use that energy are limited in their impact. These include: a) Breastfeeding support: Breastfeeding is recognised as providing babies with the best nutritional start in life. Breastfeeding rates at 6-8 weeks in Birmingham compare favourably with other parts of the country, although there is always room for improvement. ‘Birmingham Forward Steps’, the Birmingham Early Years provider partnership, and the maternity providers in the city are working towards improving breastfeeding rates by developing a shared approach to promoting and supporting breastfeeding. This is based on UNICEF Baby Friendly Initiative (BFI) principles. Birmingham Forward Steps and other partners are working to achieve various stages of Baby Friendly Initiative status (Birmingham Women’s; Good Hope Hospital and City Hospital are fully accredited; Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Trust is currently at Stage 2 and working towards stage 3). b) Startwell is a service commissioned as part of the Birmingham Forward Steps by Birmingham City Council. Startwell works with providers of Early Years settings, e.g. nurseries, to provide nutritional advice and opportunities for physical development. The aim is to enable provision of health environments for children in their care. The scheme is based on an awards system and may include cooking sessions with staff. c) Healthy Start Vouchers This is a government-led means tested initiative providing healthy food vouchers (milk, fruit and vegetables) to families receiving benefits with children 0-4 years

Page 11 of 74 Page 3 of 5

old. Families are provided with vouchers to purchase these food items to the value of £3.10 per week, per child. It is conservatively estimated that there is widespread underuse of the vouchers by eligible families resulting in an under-claim of £1.5 million in Birmingham. This results in a reduction in nutrition in these families and a loss of retail revenue in these communities. Work is underway in Birmingham to increase the usage of Healthy Start vouchers by increasing registration for the vouchers, their use, and the retail spaces in which to use them. This will boost local retail income and provide healthy food to deprived families at no cost to the family, retailer, or Birmingham Public Services. d) HENRY is a nutritional support programme for families with preschool overweight children. It is delivered by Birmingham Forward Steps to individual families. There is limited research evidence to demonstrate a beneficial or sustained impact of any of these approaches on levels of obesity. They do have other benefits which may make them a valuable activity in this family setting. 5. THE WAY FORWARD Creating a healthier environment Our approach to tackling childhood obesity needs to be dynamic and flexible, and evolving all the time. The whole system is based on the principle of stakeholder engagement and collaboration because it is everyone’s responsibility and everyone needs to play his or her part. At the heart of this approach will be the council coordinating and facilitating action to achieve our common goal – tackling childhood obesity. There is a local commitment to create a healthier food environment for our communities outside of school. A key priority for Birmingham is creating healthier food choices for families who are faced with hard times and financial constraints. It is recognised that access to healthy food varies across our City and a commitment to making environmental change that makes the ‘healthy choice the easy choice’ for everyone. Healthy food that is easily accessible and affordable. The interventions within this area contain both social and environmental components. There is good progress engaging with food retailers but there is a need to identify further opportunities for intervention, linked to strategies to tackle food and family poverty. Working with retailers There is momentum gathering pace as retailers promote the purchase of fruit and vegetables. The recent Peas Please retailer pledges show the enthusiasm which retailers share to promote vegetable consumption. The challenge remains finding improvements which are effective beyond the short term, targeted to households where the need is greatest and acceptable to retailers from a commercial perspective.

Page 12 of 74 Page 4 of 5

Work is progressing with a major discount supermarket chain in the Birmingham area to design and test interventions which promote buying healthy food. The initial stage involves research into the barriers to the purchase and usage of fruit and veg, with specific emphasis on the local store catchments in some of Birmingham’s ethnically diverse and economically challenged areas. The hypothesis is that although people are broadly aware that a healthy diet is a good thing, real life gets in the way. This can be because unhealthy choices are easier, more salient and attractive or they just what people are used to. The opportunity for influencing change in Birmingham requires an understanding of the practicalities for local customers and the retailer. The supermarket will then run a series of trials on how to use some subtle ‘nudges’ within stores at the specific points where customers can be influenced, rather than trying to educate customers when they may not be in decision making mode. The trials will also test how to optimise targeted voucher incentives of different types. In the US and Canada, federal funding has been used to increase the value of the nearest equivalent schemes to the UK Healthy Start vouchers. Extra funds are then often spent at farmer’s markets (which differ from the model of farmer’s markets in the UK). ‘Rose vouchers’ operate in several London boroughs and supplement Healthy Start vouchers through charitable funds. These projects offer targeted help but require external funding. If a model could be found where incentives were supplier funded to be spent only in that chain of stores, it might be more sustainable. By developing and testing different incentives and methods of delivery it is hoped to optimise incremental fruit and vegetable purchase from a local targeted audience in most need of help. The aim is to use robust measurement to test not just the customer behaviour but the profit impact in the hope it can offer a model for wider adoption. However, promoting the purchase of healthy options does not necessarily mean less unhealthy food is consumed. Although this aspect will be measured in the trials, it is likely that different nudges and incentives would be needed to disincentivise the purchase of, chocolate and cake and this may not be as willingly adopted and funded by suppliers. 6. CONCLUSION The established family centered intervention programmes currently in use have failed to slow the rising obesity epidemic in Birmingham preschool children. The programmes may remain if shown to deliver some other benefit or may be lost in the cost-effective debate of the future. The development of a range of environmental approaches influencing choices and intentions should be properly evaluated in an action research model. This way the city can build on what it demonstrates to be beneficial and discard what proves to be ineffective. Dr Dennis Wilkes Assistant Director of Public Health Birmingham City Council

Page 13 of 74 Page 5 of 5

Page 14 of 74 Younger Adult Day Service Consolidation

Lessons Learnt

Melanie Brooks Adult Social Care and Health

Page 15 of 74 Timeline

Decisions • Budget and Business Plan based on closure of two centres – March 2016 • Business case to propose Fairway and Advanced Enablement as centres to close – June 2017 • Officer Report in January 2018 setting out progress to date on implementation • Cabinet Report February 2018 to close Advanced and setting out further work for Fairway - ongoing consultation, social work engagement and alternative provision To note – Day Opportunity Strategy development agreed in January 2018 coproduction on having a good day and Internal Service Consultation

Page 16 of 74 Page 17 of 74 ISSUES

• Delay between Budget Consultation and Service Delivery action • Changes in Senior Management • Stakeholder analysis • Lack of a genuine coproduction approach

Page 18 of 74 New Way of Working

• Adult Social Care Vision (Cabinet October 2017) underpinned by Coproduction • Coproduction is an open process and often led by Peer/Service User Champions • Bottom up – centred around the person and the person comes first • Others work to direct ideas or test models (carers, staff, professionals, Elected Members, local Councillors, local leaders) This is a very new way of working locally and will take time to develop and evolve. It cantPage 19be of 74 rushed! Example – Day Opportunity Strategy

• Vision articulated at Cabinet December 2017 with direction from National and local learning • Open events with Service Users • Carers events • Provider engagement events • Independent review included meetings and interviews with service users and staff • Paper to Cabinet planned for July 2018 • Coproduction group will lead change

Paradigm shift – from Decide – Consult – Decide to ongoing discussion and development.

Page 20 of 74 Adult Social Care and Health 0121 6750393

[email protected]

Page 21 of 74

Page 22 of 74 THE FAIRWAY DAY CENTRE

Background

When the Health and Social Care O&S Committee (HOSC) met on 19th March 2018 the Corporate Director for Adult Social Care and Health presented a report that had been approved by Cabinet on 6th March ‘Younger Adults Day Care Consolidation – Adult Social Care and Health’ which summarised the work undertaken on proposals for the service consolidation and set out next steps towards a Full Business Case. The Fairway Day Centre has been identified for possible closure but it was proposed to undertake further consultation and engagement with service users and a report detailing the outcome brought back to Cabinet when complete. It is understood that the report is scheduled to go to Cabinet on 31st July 2018.

During discussions, members’ raised a number of issues and asked for further information on the following:‐

o Map 1 – A map of Birmingham indicating where each service user lives and their individual needs (anonymised). o Map 2 – Locations of alternative provision centres. For each centre: . Location . Needs catered for e.g. dementia. . Costs . Service user vacancies Response from Adult Social Care & Health

The number of individuals that were attending at the start of the process was 67 (see Appendix 1). All individuals have been assessed by the reviewing team and individuals have been supported to explore various options including a Direct Payment, internal and external provision (see below).

As at 4th January 2018

Demographics

There are currently 67 people using the Fairway Centre: Older Adults = 9 Physical Disability = 28 (8 of whom are between 60‐65 years of age) Physical Disability and Learning Disability = 11 Physical Disability and over 65 years = 19

Page 23 of 74 Possible Provision

We have considered what type of new provision people have said they would like/need and our knowledge of what would be appropriate. See below for possible numbers (there is some duplication here as we have a couple of options for many):

Internal Younger Adults provision (LD) = 20 (Harborne and Moseley) External Older Adult provision = 24 Signposting/SWEET project = 3 Elwood = 1 External PD (Sense?) = 19 Extra Care Village = 6 Headway = 4 Stay at home (by choice) = 2

We would envisage next steps to include targeted visits to providers and/or a Provider Event ‘Market Style’ in order to enable people to make informed choices. We would suggest the following as a minimum to be considered:

Moseley DC Harborne DC SENSE TLC All Nations The Robin Centre First Practice Pannel Croft Age UK Age Concern Headway SWEET project Mencap

As at 8th May 2018

Possible Provision

Many people have now expressed a view or made a decision as to where they wish to go if Fairways closes:

Moseley DC – 5

Harborne – 4 Balance – 7 Robin DC – 1 Headway – 2 Cerebral Palsy Midlands – 1

Page 24 of 74 Focus – 1 Hockley – 1 Direct Payment – 1 PA via an agency – 1 Stay at home – 2 Still deciding/visiting – 27 Current not attending due to health issues – 5

Already left and started new provision ‐2. A further 5 approximately are due to start new provision imminently.

Visits/talks have been arranged with:

Moseley DC Harborne DC SENSE Mencap Focus Balance

Some individual visits have also taken place.

Fifty one individuals currently attend the Fairway Centre (see Appendix 2).

Page 25 of 74 APPENDIX 1

Older Adults

The Fairway total attendees 67

Physical Physical Disability Disability /Learning Disability 47

Page 26 of 74 APPENDIX 2

Sparkhill

Balsall Heath 3 Longbridge West & 2 West Heath 14

Rubery Druids Heath & & Rednal Monyhull 3 6

Bournville The Fairway Weoley & current users & Cotteridge Selly Oak 6 by ward 1

Hall Green King Norton South South 1 8

Edgbaston Billesley

1 Harborne 4 Page 27 of 74 2

Page 28 of 74 Featured measures Cabinet Scorecard - May 2018

Daily Average Delay beds per day per 100,000 18A population – combined figure (Social Care only and Joint NHS and Social Care)

Latest Month: 9.7 Previous Month: 9.7 Target: 9.6 Apr 18 Mar 18 (EoY 6.8) Performance: Direction of travel: AMBER Static (Amber) Owner: Pauline Mugridge Commentary: Delayed transfers of care from hospital that are attributable to social care or are the joint responsibility of social care and the NHS have remained at the same level as the previous month. This is despite a correction to the recording methodology at one of the hospital trusts that has resulted in an increased number of recorded DToC at their sites. Action plans will be developed over the summer in preparation for the increased pressure of the winter period.

Percentage of concluded Safeguarding enquiries where the individual or representative was asked what their desired outcomes were

Latest Month: 89% Previous Month: 80% Target: 85% May 18 Apr 18 Performance: Direction of travel: GREEN Up (Green) Owner: David Gray Commentary: As previously noted, monthly results can vary above and below the target, based upon relatively small numbers. It is pleasing to ote this oth’s result, ut the tred aroud the target figure of 85% is proaly ore represetatie.

Uptake of Direct Payments

Latest Month: 25.3% Previous Month: 24.5% Target: 25.8% May 18 Apr 18 (EoY 30%) Performance: Direction of travel: AMBER Up (Green) Owner: Julia Parfitt I Fiona Mould Commentary: The number of direct payments have continued to increase and extensive work is happening with teams and with providers to ensure this continues. A full improvement plan has been drafted and is scheduled to be ratified at the July Direct Payments Prograe Board. This further detail ill e reported i Moth 3’s perforae soreard.

Proportion of clients reviewed, reassessed or assessed within 12 months

Latest Month: 76.7% Previous Month: 77.4% Target: 80.8% May 18 Apr 18 (EoY 85%) Performance: Direction of travel: RED Down (Red) Owner: ASC GMs Commentary: This is below target and work is going on with the constituency teams to ensure that we get back on target. An exercise will shortly commence to reprofile the reviews which are scheduled to take place during the year. This will enable workload targets to be evened out across the remaining period of 2018I19, to mitigate busy periods and ensure that staff resources are allocated accordingly. Page 29 of 74 Cabinet Scorecard - May 2018 Produced by AC&H Information and Analysis Team (data from various sources)

1. Use of Resources Constit- Bench- Measure Status Target Last Month This Month D o T uencies markable Daily Average Delay beds per day per 100,000 18+ 9.6 Static 1 population – combined figure (Social Care only and AMBER 9.7 9.7  (EoY 6.8) (Amber) Joint NHS and Social Care) The proportion of clients receiving Residential, Nursing or Home Care or Care and Support 70.7% 70% Down 2 RED 75%  (supported living) from a provider that is rated as (Q3) (Q4) (Red) Silver or Gold (Quarterly)

Proportion of clients reviewed, reassessed or 80.8% Down 3 RED 77.4% 76.7%  assessed within 12 months (EoY 85%) (Red)

2. Personalised Support Measure Status Target Last Month This Month D o T Const. B/mark

Social work client satisfaction - postcard 100% 4 GREEN 70% questionnaire. (Q3) (Q4)

Percentage of concluded Safeguarding enquiries Up 5 where the individual or representative was asked GREEN 85% 80% 89%  (Green) what their desired outcomes were

25.8% Up 6 Uptake of Direct Payments AMBER 24.5% 25.3%  (EoY 30%) (Green)

The percentage of people who receive Adult Social Up 7 GREEN DoT Only 68.4% 68.6%  Care in their own home (Green)

72 Down 8 The number of people who have Shared Lives RED 69 68 (EoY 140) (Red)

3. Prevention and Early Help Measure Status Target Last Month This Month D o T Const. B/mark

The percentage of births that receive a face-to-face 89% 90% Up 9 GREEN 90%  new-born visit within 14 days (Q3) (Q4) (Green)

Proportion of eligible people receiving an NHS 2.1% 2.8% Up 10 GREEN 2.5%  health check (Q3) (Q4) (Green)

Rate of positive chlamydia screens (per 100,000 1876 11 N/A 2300  young people aged 15-24) (Q3) (Q4)

182 215 Up 12 Number of smoking quitters at 12 weeks GREEN 168  (Q3) (Q4) (Green)

Percentage of drugs users who are in full time 30.3% 31% 30.8% Down 13 employment for 10 working days following or upon GREEN  (EoY 33%) (Q3) (Q4) (Red) discharge

6942 7496 Up 14 Children under 5 attending wellbeing service RED 13500 (Q3) (Q4) (Green)

20339 21727 Up 15 Adults over 70 attending wellbeing service GREEN 19500 (Q3) (Q4) (Green)

4. Community Assets Measure Status Target Last Month This Month D o T Const. B/mark

The percentage of service users aged 18-64 with 1% Static 16 GREEN 1% 1%  learning disabilities in employment (EoY 2%) (Amber)

Page 30 of 74

Theme: Use of Resources Change: Last Month This Month Target Daily Average Delay beds per day per 100,000 18A population – AMBER 9.7 9.7 9.6 Static combined figure (Social Care only and Joint NHS and Social Care) 0.1% (EoY 6.8) (Amber)

Source: UNIFY data as issued by NHS Digital. Data collated by health, available a month in arrears Commentary: Delayed transfers of care from hospital that are attributable to social care

May 17 Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 ## Mar 18 Apr 18 or are the joint responsibility of social care and the NHS have remained at

Reported 11.5 15 13.4 11.8 12.7 13 10.8 9 9.4 10 9.7 9.7 the same level as the previous month. This is despite a correction to the recording methodology at one of the hospital trusts that has resulted in an R ecalc increased number of recorded DToC at their sites. Action plans will be Ta get 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 10.3 9 7.3 5.7 5.7 6 5.7 9.6 developed over the summer in preparation for the increased pressure of r oYE Target 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 6.8 7 6.8 6.8 the winter period.

15.0 13.4 12.7 13.0 11.5 11.8 10.8 10.2 9.7 9.7 9.0 9.4

May 17 Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18

Measure Owner: Responsible Officer: Reported outturn Target Pauline Mugridge

Frequently asked questions: (EoY as dotted line)

Page 31 of 74

Theme: Use of Resources Change: Prev. Quarter Latest Quarter Target The proportion of clients receiving Residential, Nursing or Home RED Down 70.7% 70% 75% Care or Care and Support (supported living) from a provider that 0.7 pp is rated as Silver or Gold (Quarterly) (Red) Source: Carefirst service agreements and commissioning provider assessment data Commentary:

68.8% of citizens were with providers rated Good in 2017-18, 81.2% for Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 home support and 51.3% for bed based support. R eported 6l.8 66.6 70.7 70 Performance in home support fell from 85.6 to 81.2%. 13 previously Good

Recalc providers are now rated Requires Improvement (323 clients). Another 9 providers are now Unrated (239 clients). However, please note that over Ta get 75 75 75 75 the same period, 447 clients were with providers that improved to being r oYE Target 75 75 75 75 rated Good.

Performance also fell for bed based care, from 52.7% to 51.3%. 25 previously Good providers are now rated Requires Improvement (196

70.7% 70.0% clients). Another 11 now Unrated (64 clients). As above, please note that 66.6% 61.8% over the same period 196 clients were with providers which improved to a

Good rating.

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Measure Owner: Responsible Officer: Reported Outturn Target Alison Malik Frequently asked questions:

Page 32 of 74

Theme: Use of Resources Change: Last Month This Month Target Proportion of clients reviewed, reassessed or assessed within 12 RED 77.4% 76.7% 80.8% Down months 0.7 pp (EoY 85%) (Red)

Source: Carefirst snapshot. The proportion of people receiving a reviewable service who have had a recorded review, assessment or reassessment in the last 12 months Commentary: This is below target and work is going on with the constituency teams to

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 ## Apr 18 May 18 ensure that we get back on target. An exercise will shortly commence to

R eported 75.2 74.3 74 75 75.3 76.4 75.7 75.8 78.5 80 77.4 76.7 reprofile the reviews which are scheduled to take place during the year.

Recalc This will enable workload targets to be evened out across the remaining period of 2018/19, to mitigate busy periods and ensure that staff resources Ta get 76.6 77 77.4 77.8 78.1 78.5 78.9 79.3 79.3 80 80.4 8 0.8 are allocated accordingly. r oYE Target 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85

78.5% 80.3% 75.2% 74.3% 74.0% 75.0% 75.3% 76.4% 75.7% 75.8% 77.4% 76.7%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Measure Owner: Responsible Officer: Reported outturn Target ASC GMs

Frequently asked questions: (EoY as dotted line)

Page 33 of 74

Theme: Personalised Support Change: Prev. Quarter Latest Quarter Target Social work client satisfaction - postcard questionnaire. GREEN 100% 70%

Source: Postcard survey- given to people by their social worker following an assessment Commentary:

The Principal Social Worker Post Card is given to all citizens when a social Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 care worker has completed a visit for an assessment, review or Reported 0 0 #VALUE! l00 conversation. This is a prepaid card and citizens are asked to answer 4

Recalc questions and return the card to feedback on their experience of the social

care workers involvement. This card has been co-produced with citizens. Ta get 70 70 70 70 r oYE Target 70 70 70 70 The four questions are statements with yes/no/don't know answers: - I got the information I needed - I was listened to

- I understand what will happen next 100% - I was treated with respect

0% 0% 0%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Measure Owner: Responsible Officer: Reported Outturn Target Fiona Mould Frequently asked questions:

Page 34 of 74

Theme: Personalised Support Change: Last Month This Month Target Percentage of concluded Safeguarding enquiries where the GREEN Up 80% 89% 85% individual or representative was asked what their desired 9 pp Recalculated: outcomes were (Green) 82% Source: Carefirst. Proportion of qualifying closed Safeguarding Enquiry forms where the question "Was the adult asked about their Making Safeguarding Personal Outcomes" was answered "Yes" Commentary:

As previously noted, monthly results can vary above and below the target, Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 ## Apr 18 May 18 based upon relatively small numbers. It is pleasing to note this oth’s

R eported 75 83 82 81 84 83 81 80 83 88 80 89 result, but the trend around the target figure of 85% is probably more

representative. R ecalc 81 92 88 88 86 84 85 86 86 89 82 89

Ta get 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85

r oYE Target 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85 85

88% 89% 84% 83% 82% 81% 83% 81% 80% 83% 80% 75%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Measure Owner: Responsible Officer: Reported outturn Recalculated Target David Gray Frequently asked questions:

Page 35 of 74

Theme: Personalised Support Change: Last Month This Month Target Uptake of Direct Payments AMBER 24.5% 25.3% 25.8% Up 0.8 pp (EoY 30%) (Green)

Source: Carefirst service agreements. The proportion of clients receiving an eligible care package who have at least part of it delivered via direct payment. Commentary:

The number of direct payments have continued to increase and extensive Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 ## Apr 18 May 18 work is happening with teams and with providers to ensure this continues.

R eported 22.1 22.6 22.9 23.2 23.3 23.6 23.5 23.6 23.8 24 24.5 25.3 A full improvement plan has been drafted and is scheduled to be ratified at

the July Direct Payments Programme Board. This further detail will be R ecalc reported in Month 3’s performance scorecard. Ta get 22.1 22.4 22.7 23.1 23.4 23.7 24 24.4 24.7 25 25.4 2 5.8

r oYE Target 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30

24.5% 25.3% 22.9% 23.2% 23.3% 23.6% 23.5% 23.6% 23.8% 24.3% 22.1% 22.6%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Measure Owner: Responsible Officer: Reported outturn Target Julia Parfitt I Fiona Mould

Frequently asked questions: (EoY as dotted line)

Page 36 of 74

Theme: Personalised Support Change: Last Month This Month Preferred The percentage of people who receive Adult Social Care in their GREEN 68.4% 68.6% Travel: Up own home 0.2 pp Recalculated: Upwards (Green) 68.3% Source: Carefirst via finance team. Snapshot proportion of people receiving long-term services who do not receive residential or nursing care Commentary:

The percentage of people receiving care in their own home is continuing to Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 ## Apr 18 May 18 increase. R eported 68.6 68.6 68.3 68.1 68.2 68.1 67.9 68.2 68.3 68 68.4 68.6

R ecalc 68.6 68.6 68.3 68.1 68.2 68.1 67.9 68.2 68.4 68 68.3 6 8.6

Ta get r oYE Target

68.6% 68.6% 68.3% 68.1% 68.2% 68.1% 67.9% 68.2% 68.3% 68.3% 68.4% 68.6%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Measure Owner: Responsible Officer: Reported outturn Recalculated Pauline Mugridge Frequently asked questions:

Page 37 of 74

Theme: Personalised Support Change: Last Month This Month Target The number of people who have Shared Lives RED 69 68 72 Down 1.4% Recalculated: (EoY 140) (Red) 68 Source: Carefirst service agreements Commentary:

Work has been undertaken by Shared Lives Plus to identify the shortfalls Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 ## Apr 18 May 18 and strength of the service. The draft report was shared with managers in

R eported 74 72 71 70 73 74 73 72 69 69 69 68 June 2018. The service is looking at proposals to increase capacity following

on from recommendations. This includes looking at Shared Lives R ecalc 76 72 68 70 73 74 72 71 68 68 68 68 partnering with an external shared lives agency to build capacity. An Ta get 76 76 76 77 77 77 77 77 77 78 70 72 internal review has been undertaken of the capacity and strengths of the r oYE Target 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 ## 140 140 senior scheme worker team ensuring the activities to maintain the

requirements of registration and those required to meet the placement

targets are given equal focus. An investment plan is been developed to seek resources to upscale the existing service to meet the increased stretch

target set.

74 74 72 71 70 73 73 72 69 69 69 68

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Measure Owner: Responsible Officer: Reported outturn Recalculated Target Sueb Jabbar

Frequently asked questions: (EoY as dotted line)

Page 38 of 74

Theme: Prevention and Early Help Change: Prev. Quarter Latest Quarter Target The percentage of births that receive a face-to-face new-born GREEN Up 89% 90% 90% visit within 14 days 1 pp (Green)

Source: Public Health Commentary: The target has been met for this quarter.

Ql Q2 Q3 Q4

R eported 0 92 89 90

Recalc Ta get 90 90 90 90 r oYE Target 90 90 90 90

92% 89% 90%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Measure Owner: Responsible Officer: Reported Outturn Target Fiona Grant Frequently asked questions:

Page 39 of 74

Theme: Prevention and Early Help Change: Prev. Quarter Latest Quarter Target Proportion of eligible people receiving an NHS health check GREEN Up 2.1% 2.8% 2.5% 0.7 pp (Green)

Source: Public Health Commentary: Performance is above the required target for this quarter.

Ql Q2 Q3 Q4

R eported 0 3.2 2.l 2.8

R ecalc Ta get 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 r oYE Target 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

3.2% 2.8%

2.1%

0.0%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Measure Owner: Responsible Officer: Reported Outturn Target Clare Reardon I Bhavna Tank Frequently asked questions:

Page 40 of 74

Theme: Prevention and Early Help Change: Prev. Quarter Latest Quarter Target Rate of positive chlamydia screens (per 100,000 young people N/A 1876 2300 aged 15-24)

Source: Public Health Commentary:

We are currently awaiting the latest release of this national data. Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

R eported 0 1879 1876 #VALUE!

Recalc Ta get 2300 2300 2300 2300 r oYE Target 2300 2300 2300 2300

1,879 1,876

0 0

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Measure Owner: Responsible Officer: Reported Outturn Target Max Vaughan I Clare Reardon Frequently asked questions:

Page 41 of 74

Theme: Prevention and Early Help Change: Prev. Quarter Latest Quarter Target Number of smoking quitters at 12 weeks GREEN Up 182 215 168 18.1% (Green)

Source: Public Health Commentary:

Performance is above the required target for this quarter. Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Reported 0 156 182

R 215 ecalc Ta get 168 168 168 168

r oYE Target 168 168 168 168

215 182 156

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Measure Owner: Responsible Officer: Reported Outturn Target Clare Reardon Frequently asked questions:

Page 42 of 74

Theme: Prevention and Early Help Change: Prev. Quarter Latest Quarter Target Percentage of drugs users who are in full time employment for GREEN 31% 30.8% 30.3% Down 10 working days following or upon discharge 0.2 pp (EoY 33%) (Red)

Source: Public Health Commentary:

We remain over the target figure. Performance is reviewed with the Ql Q2 Q3 Q4 contract provider on a quarterly basis and penalties are in place in the

R eported 0 29 3l 30.8 event of performance dropping below agreed targets.

Recalc

Ta get 30 30 30 30.3 r oYE Target 33 33 33 33

31.0% 30.8% 29.0%

0.0%

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Measure Owner: Responsible Officer: Reported Outturn Target Max Vaughan I Clare Reardon

Frequently asked questions: (EoY as dotted line)

Page 43 of 74

Theme: Prevention and Early Help Change: Prev. Quarter Latest Quarter Target Children under 5 attending wellbeing service RED Up 6942 7496 13500 8% (Green)

Source: Public Health Commentary:

There has been an improvement in the performance on this measure Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 quarter-on-quarter, although it is recognised that performance is Reported 0 6540 6942 7496 significantly below target. There are seasonal variations in the number of attendances that are possible, and this will have an impact on Recalc performance. Ta get 13500 13500 13500 13500 r oYE Target 13500 13500 13500 13500

7,496 6,540 6,942

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Measure Owner: Responsible Officer: Reported Outturn Target Clare Reardon Frequently asked questions:

Page 44 of 74

Theme: Prevention and Early Help Change: Prev. Quarter Latest Quarter Target Adults over 70 attending wellbeing service GREEN Up 20339 21727 19500 6.8% (Green)

Source: Public Health Commentary:

There has been a marked rise between Q3 and Q4, which is positive. Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Reported 0 16659 20339 21727

Recalc

Ta get 19500 19500 19500 19500

r oYE Target 19500 19500 19500 19500

21,727 20,339

16,659

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Measure Owner: Responsible Officer: Reported Outturn Target Clare Reardon Frequently asked questions:

Page 45 of 74

Theme: Community Assets Change: Last Month This Month Target The percentage of service users aged 18-64 with learning GREEN 1% 1% 1% Static disabilities in employment 0 pp (EoY 2%) (Amber)

Source: Carefirst classifications Commentary: This will be an area of focus for the coming year as performance is not at an

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 ## Apr 18 May 18 acceptable level. A sustainable plan for improvement is currently being

R eported 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 developed. Planning will include realistic targets for improving

R ecalc performance over the medium and longer term.

Ta get 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r oYE Target 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

1.00% 1.00% 1.00%

0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Measure Owner: Responsible Officer: Reported outturn Target Melanie Brooks

Frequently asked questions: (EoY as dotted line)

Page 46 of 74 Constituency Scorecard Breakdown - May 2018 Showing results for people assigned to the team that covers Edgbaston

Proportion of eligible people in receipt of direct payments

23.6%

22.1% 22.1%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Edgbaston Citywide Citywide (target)

Spread of results This month Yardley Selly Oak Northfield Erdington Edgbaston Hodge Hill Citywide Hall Green Sutton Ladywood Perry Barr lowest Highest 18.3% 20.6% 22.0% 23.0% 23.6% 23.6% 25.3% 26.3% 27.4% 31.0% 33.2% Performance for people under non-constituency teams: 25.4%

12 month average Yardley Northfield Selly Oak Edgbaston Erdington Hodge Hill Citywide Hall Green Sutton Ladywood Perry Barr lowest Highest 18.1% 20.8% 20.9% 22.6% 22.8% 23.0% 23.6% 25.3% 27.9% 30.5% 32.2% Performance for people under non-constituency teams: 24.2%

Proportion of people receiving services from a provider rated as silver or gold Please note- this is broken down by the address of the citizen (including those in Care Homes) and not the responsible team.

68.1% 62.3% 59.7% 55.8%

2017-18 Q1 2017-18 Q2 2017-18 Q3 2017-18 Q4

Edgbaston Citywide Citywide (target)

Spread of results latest quarter Ladywood Northfield Edgbaston Citywide Perry Barr Erdington Hodge Hill Hall Green Selly Oak Sutton Yardley lowest Highest 50.6% 59.6% 59.7% 70.0% 72.6% 73.5% 74.4% 75.3% 77.2% 79.1% Performance for people living outside Birmingham: 62.3% 80.0%

4-quarter average Ladywood Edgbaston Northfield Selly Oak Citywide Hall Green Perry Barr Hodge Hill Erdington Sutton Yardley lowest Highest 54.1% 61.5% 64.1% 66.3% 68.8% 72.4% 73.4% 73.7% 74.0% 74.3% Performance for people living outside Birmingham: 57.3% 81.4%

Page 47 of 74 Constituency Scorecard Breakdown - May 2018 Showing results for people assigned to the team that covers Edgbaston

Proportion of clients reviewed or assessed in the last 12 months

79.1% 79.8% 77.5%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Edgbaston Citywide Citywide (target)

Spread of results This month Selly Oak Perry Barr Northfield Citywide Edgbaston Hall Green Ladywood Sutton Yardley Hodge Hill Erdington lowest Highest 68.9% 74.2% 76.1% 77.0% 77.5% 77.7% 78.5% 79.5% 80.3% 81.0% 81.7% Performance for people under non-constituency teams: 75.3%

12 month average Selly Oak Citywide Perry Barr Edgbaston Northfield Ladywood Sutton Hall Green Yardley Hodge Hill Erdington lowest Highest 72.0% 76.5% 76.5% 78.8% 80.3% 80.6% 80.8% 81.0% 81.1% 82.9% Performance for people under non-constituency teams: 76.5% 83.3%

Proportion of completed safeguarding enquiries where the person was asked about their desired outcomes

83.3% 80.0% 71.4%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Edgbaston Citywide Citywide (target)

Spread of results This month Perry Barr Edgbaston Sutton Yardley Citywide Ladywood Selly Oak Northfield Hodge Hill Hall Green Erdington lowest Highest 81.8% 83.3% 87.5% 88.9% 91.0% 96.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Performance for people under non-constituency teams: 77.8%

12 month overall Sutton Perry Barr Hodge Hill Edgbaston Erdington Ladywood Citywide Hall Green Selly Oak Northfield Yardley lowest Highest 75.3% 83.1% 85.5% 86.8% 87.1% 87.2% 87.3% 89.9% 90.1% 92.2% 92.7% Performance for people under non-constituency teams: 82.3%

Page 48 of 74 Constituency Scorecard Breakdown - May 2018 Showing results for people assigned to the team that covers Erdington

Proportion of eligible people in receipt of direct payments

23.0% 23.0% 22.4%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Erdington Citywide Citywide (target)

83.0% 76.9% 73.5%

62.7%

2017-18 Q1 2017-18 Q2 2017-18 Q3 2017-18 Q4

Erdington Citywide Citywide (target)

4-quarter average Ladywood Edgbaston Northfield Selly Oak Citywide Hall Green Perry Barr Hodge Hill Erdington Sutton Yardley lowest Highest 54.1% 61.5% 64.1% 66.3% 68.8% 72.4% 73.4% 73.7% 74.0% 74.3% 81.4% Performance for people living outside Birmingham: 57.3%

Page 49 of 74 Constituency Scorecard Breakdown - May 2018 Showing results for people assigned to the team that covers Erdington

Proportion of clients reviewed or assessed in the last 12 months

84.9% 83.3% 81.7%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Erdington Citywide Citywide (target)

12 month average Selly Oak Citywide Perry Barr Edgbaston Northfield Ladywood Sutton Hall Green Yardley Hodge Hill Erdington lowest Highest 72.0% 76.5% 76.5% 78.8% 80.3% 80.6% 80.8% 81.0% 81.1% 83.3% Performance for people under non-constituency teams: 76.5% 82.9%

Proportion of completed safeguarding enquiries where the person was asked about their desired outcomes

100.0%

82.4%

62.5%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Erdington Citywide Citywide (target)

Page 50 of 74 Constituency Scorecard Breakdown - May 2018 Showing results for people assigned to the team that covers Hall Green

Proportion of eligible people in receipt of direct payments

26.3% 25.5%

24.1%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Hall Green Citywide Citywide (target)

77.7% 75.3% 75.3%

61.5%

2017-18 Q1 2017-18 Q2 2017-18 Q3 2017-18 Q4

Hall Green Citywide Citywide (target)

Spread of results latest quarter Ladywood Northfield Edgbaston Citywide Perry Barr Erdington Hodge Hill Hall Green Selly Oak Sutton Yardley lowest Highest 50.6% 59.6% 59.7% 70.0% 72.6% 73.5% 74.4% 75.3% 77.2% 79.1% 80.0% Performance for people living outside Birmingham: 62.3%

Page 51 of 74 Constituency Scorecard Breakdown - May 2018 Showing results for people assigned to the team that covers Hall Green

Proportion of clients reviewed or assessed in the last 12 months

83.9% 81.5%

77.7%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Hall Green Citywide Citywide (target)

12 month average Selly Oak Citywide Perry Barr Edgbaston Northfield Ladywood Sutton Hall Green Yardley Hodge Hill Erdington lowest Highest 72.0% 76.5% 76.5% 78.8% 80.3% 80.6% 80.8% 81.0% 81.1% 82.9% 83.3% Performance for people under non-constituency teams: 76.5%

Proportion of completed safeguarding enquiries where the person was asked about their desired outcomes

100.0%

87.5%

50.0%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Hall Green Citywide Citywide (target)

Page 52 of 74 Constituency Scorecard Breakdown - May 2018 Showing results for people assigned to the team that covers Hodge Hill

Proportion of eligible people in receipt of direct payments

23.6% 23.0% 22.5%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Hodge Hill Citywide Citywide (target)

78.4% 74.4% 74.4% 67.6%

2017-18 Q1 2017-18 Q2 2017-18 Q3 2017-18 Q4

Hodge Hill Citywide Citywide (target)

Spread of results latest quarter Ladywood Northfield Edgbaston Citywide Perry Barr Erdington Hodge Hill Hall Green Selly Oak Sutton Yardley lowest Highest 50.6% 59.6% 59.7% 70.0% 72.6% 73.5% 74.4% 75.3% 77.2% 79.1% 80.0% Performance for people living outside Birmingham: 62.3%

4-quarter average Ladywood Edgbaston Northfield Selly Oak Citywide Hall Green Perry Barr Hodge Hill Erdington Sutton Yardley lowest Highest 54.1% 61.5% 64.1% 66.3% 68.8% 72.4% 73.4% 73.7% 74.0% 74.3% 81.4% Performance for people living outside Birmingham: 57.3%

Page 53 of 74 Constituency Scorecard Breakdown - May 2018 Showing results for people assigned to the team that covers Hodge Hill

Proportion of clients reviewed or assessed in the last 12 months

83.9% 83.6% 81.0%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Hodge Hill Citywide Citywide (target)

12 month average Selly Oak Citywide Perry Barr Edgbaston Northfield Ladywood Sutton Hall Green Yardley Hodge Hill Erdington lowest Highest 72.0% 76.5% 76.5% 78.8% 80.3% 80.6% 80.8% 81.0% 82.9% 83.3% Performance for people under non-constituency teams: 76.5% 81.1%

Proportion of completed safeguarding enquiries where the person was asked about their desired outcomes

100.0% 100.0% 92.9%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Hodge Hill Citywide Citywide (target)

Page 54 of 74 Constituency Scorecard Breakdown - May 2018 Showing results for people assigned to the team that covers Ladywood

Proportion of eligible people in receipt of direct payments

30.6% 31.0% 30.0%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Ladywood Citywide Citywide (target)

Spread of results This month Yardley Selly Oak Northfield Erdington Edgbaston Hodge Hill Citywide Hall Green Sutton Ladywood Perry Barr Lowest Highest 18.3% 20.6% 22.0% 23.0% 23.6% 23.6% 25.3% 26.3% 27.4% 31.0% 33.2% Performance for people under non-constituency teams: 25.4%

12 month average Yardley Northfield Selly Oak Edgbaston Erdington Hodge Hill Citywide Hall Green Sutton Ladywood Perry Barr Lowest Highest 18.1% 20.8% 20.9% 22.6% 22.8% 23.0% 23.6% 25.3% 27.9% 30.5% 32.2% Performance for people under non-constituency teams: 24.2%

57.3% 55.1% 53.2% 50.6%

2017-18 Q1 2017-18 Q2 2017-18 Q3 2017-18 Q4

Ladywood Citywide Citywide (target)

Spread of results Latest quarter Ladywood Northfield Edgbaston Citywide Perry Barr Erdington Hodge Hill Hall Green Selly Oak Sutton Yardley Lowest Highest 50.6% 59.6% 59.7% 70.0% 72.6% 73.5% 74.4% 75.3% 77.2% 79.1% Performance for people living outside Birmingham: 62.3% 80.0%

4-quarter average Ladywood Edgbaston Northfield Selly Oak Citywide Hall Green Perry Barr Hodge Hill Erdington Sutton Yardley Lowest Highest 54.1% 61.5% 64.1% 66.3% 68.8% 72.4% 73.4% 73.7% 74.0% 74.3% Performance for people living outside Birmingham: 57.3% 81.4%

Page 55 of 74 Constituency Scorecard Breakdown - May 2018 Showing results for people assigned to the team that covers Ladywood

Proportion of clients reviewed or assessed in the last 12 months

82.5% 80.9% 78.5%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Ladywood Citywide Citywide (target)

Spread of results This month Selly Oak Perry Barr Northfield Citywide Edgbaston Hall Green Ladywood Sutton Yardley Hodge Hill Erdington Lowest Highest 68.9% 74.2% 76.1% 77.0% 77.5% 77.7% 78.5% 79.5% 80.3% 81.0% 81.7% Performance for people under non-constituency teams: 75.3%

12 month average Selly Oak Citywide Perry Barr Edgbaston Northfield Ladywood Sutton Hall Green Yardley Hodge Hill Erdington Lowest Highest 72.0% 76.5% 76.5% 78.8% 80.3% 80.6% 80.8% 81.0% 81.1% 82.9% 83.3% Performance for people under non-constituency teams: 76.5%

Proportion of completed safeguarding enquiries where the person was asked about their desired outcomes

96.2% 87.5%

61.5%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Ladywood Citywide Citywide (target)

Spread of results This month Perry Barr Edgbaston Sutton Yardley Citywide Ladywood Selly Oak Northfield Hodge Hill Hall Green Erdington Lowest Highest 81.8% 83.3% 87.5% 88.9% 91.0% 96.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Performance for people under non-constituency teams: 77.8%

12 month overall Sutton Perry Barr Hodge Hill Edgbaston Erdington Ladywood Citywide Hall Green Selly Oak Northfield Yardley Lowest Highest 75.3% 83.1% 85.5% 86.8% 87.1% 87.2% 87.3% 89.9% 90.1% 92.2% 92.7% Performance for people under non-constituency teams: 82.3%

Page 56 of 74 Constituency Scorecard Breakdown - May 2018 Showing results for people assigned to the team that covers Northfield

Proportion of eligible people in receipt of direct payments

22.0% 21.3%

19.2%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Northfield Citywide Citywide (target)

76.5%

67.1%

59.6% 53.2%

2017-18 Q1 2017-18 Q2 2017-18 Q3 2017-18 Q4

Northfield Citywide Citywide (target)

Page 57 of 74 Constituency Scorecard Breakdown - May 2018 Showing results for people assigned to the team that covers Northfield

Proportion of clients reviewed or assessed in the last 12 months

84.0% 80.9%

76.1%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Northfield Citywide Citywide (target)

Spread of results This month Selly Oak Perry Barr Northfield Citywide Edgbaston Hall Green Ladywood Sutton Yardley Hodge Hill Erdington lowest Highest 68.9% 74.2% 76.1% 77.0% 77.5% 77.7% 78.5% 79.5% 80.3% 81.0% Performance for people under non-constituency teams: 75.3% 81.7%

Proportion of completed safeguarding enquiries where the person was asked about their desired outcomes

100.0%

80.0% 80.0%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Northfield Citywide Citywide (target)

Page 58 of 74 Constituency Scorecard Breakdown - May 2018 Showing results for people assigned to the team that covers Perry Barr

Proportion of eligible people in receipt of direct payments

33.2% 32.1% 31.1%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Perry Barr Citywide Citywide (target)

75.9% 76.8% 72.6% 68.3%

2017-18 Q1 2017-18 Q2 2017-18 Q3 2017-18 Q4

Perry Barr Citywide Citywide (target)

4-quarter average Ladywood Edgbaston Northfield Selly Oak Citywide Hall Green Perry Barr Hodge Hill Erdington Sutton Yardley lowest Highest 54.1% 61.5% 64.1% 66.3% 68.8% 72.4% 73.4% 73.7% 74.0% 74.3% 81.4% Performance for people living outside Birmingham: 57.3%

Page 59 of 74 Constituency Scorecard Breakdown - May 2018 Showing results for people assigned to the team that covers Perry Barr

Proportion of clients reviewed or assessed in the last 12 months

77.7% 77.6%

74.2%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Perry Barr Citywide Citywide (target)

Spread of results This month Selly Oak Perry Barr Northfield Citywide Edgbaston Hall Green Ladywood Sutton Yardley Hodge Hill Erdington lowest Highest 68.9% 74.2% 76.1% 77.0% 77.5% 77.7% 78.5% 79.5% 80.3% 81.0% Performance for people under non-constituency teams: 75.3% 81.7%

Proportion of completed safeguarding enquiries where the person was asked about their desired outcomes

100.0% 100.0%

81.8%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Perry Barr Citywide Citywide (target)

Page 60 of 74 Constituency Scorecard Breakdown - May 2018 Showing results for people assigned to the team that covers Selly Oak

Proportion of eligible people in receipt of direct payments

20.9% 21.1% 20.6%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Selly Oak Citywide Citywide (target)

77.2% 70.8% 64.1%

53.1%

2017-18 Q1 2017-18 Q2 2017-18 Q3 2017-18 Q4

Selly Oak Citywide Citywide (target)

Spread of results latest quarter Ladywood Northfield Edgbaston Citywide Perry Barr Erdington Hodge Hill Hall Green Selly Oak Sutton Yardley lowest Highest 50.6% 59.6% 59.7% 70.0% 72.6% 73.5% 74.4% 75.3% 77.2% 79.1% 80.0% Performance for people living outside Birmingham: 62.3%

Page 61 of 74 Constituency Scorecard Breakdown - May 2018 Showing results for people assigned to the team that covers Selly Oak

Proportion of clients reviewed or assessed in the last 12 months

74.6% 72.7%

68.9%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Selly Oak Citywide Citywide (target)

Spread of results This month Selly Oak Perry Barr Northfield Citywide Edgbaston Hall Green Ladywood Sutton Yardley Hodge Hill Erdington lowest Highest 68.9% 74.2% 76.1% 77.0% 77.5% 77.7% 78.5% 79.5% 80.3% 81.0% Performance for people under non-constituency teams: 75.3% 81.7%

Proportion of completed safeguarding enquiries where the person was asked about their desired outcomes

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Selly Oak Citywide Citywide (target)

Page 62 of 74 Constituency Scorecard Breakdown - May 2018 Showing results for people assigned to the team that covers Sutton Coldfield

Proportion of eligible people in receipt of direct payments

28.8% 27.5% 27.4%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Sutton Citywide Citywide (target)

79.1% 74.1% 71.2% 72.7%

2017-18 Q1 2017-18 Q2 2017-18 Q3 2017-18 Q4

Sutton Citywide Citywide (target)

Spread of results latest quarter Ladywood Northfield Edgbaston Citywide Perry Barr Erdington Hodge Hill Hall Green Selly Oak Sutton Yardley lowest Highest 50.6% 59.6% 59.7% 70.0% 72.6% 73.5% 74.4% 75.3% 77.2% 79.1% 80.0% Performance for people living outside Birmingham: 62.3%

4-quarter average Ladywood Edgbaston Northfield Selly Oak Citywide Hall Green Perry Barr Hodge Hill Erdington Sutton Yardley lowest Highest 54.1% 61.5% 64.1% 66.3% 68.8% 72.4% 73.4% 73.7% 74.0% 74.3% 81.4% Performance for people living outside Birmingham: 57.3%

Page 63 of 74 Constituency Scorecard Breakdown - May 2018 Showing results for people assigned to the team that covers Sutton Coldfield

Proportion of clients reviewed or assessed in the last 12 months

81.8% 81.3% 79.5%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Sutton Citywide Citywide (target)

12 month average Selly Oak Citywide Perry Barr Edgbaston Northfield Ladywood Sutton Hall Green Yardley Hodge Hill Erdington lowest Highest 72.0% 76.5% 76.5% 78.8% 80.3% 80.6% 80.8% 81.0% 81.1% 82.9% 83.3% Performance for people under non-constituency teams: 76.5%

Proportion of completed safeguarding enquiries where the person was asked about their desired outcomes

87.5% 83.3%

66.7%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Sutton Citywide Citywide (target)

Page 64 of 74 Constituency Scorecard Breakdown - May 2018 Showing results for people assigned to the team that covers Yardley

Proportion of eligible people in receipt of direct payments

18.3% 18.3% 17.6%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Yardley Citywide Citywide (target)

87.6% 84.6% 80.0% 73.5%

2017-18 Q1 2017-18 Q2 2017-18 Q3 2017-18 Q4

Yardley Citywide Citywide (target)

Spread of results latest quarter Ladywood Northfield Edgbaston Citywide Perry Barr Erdington Hodge Hill Hall Green Selly Oak Sutton Yardley lowest Highest 50.6% 59.6% 59.7% 70.0% 72.6% 73.5% 74.4% 75.3% 77.2% 80.0% Performance for people living outside Birmingham: 62.3% 79.1%

4-quarter average Ladywood Edgbaston Northfield Selly Oak Citywide Hall Green Perry Barr Hodge Hill Erdington Sutton Yardley lowest Highest 54.1% 61.5% 64.1% 66.3% 68.8% 72.4% 73.4% 73.7% 74.0% 74.3% 81.4% Performance for people living outside Birmingham: 57.3%

Page 65 of 74 Constituency Scorecard Breakdown - May 2018 Showing results for people assigned to the team that covers Yardley

Proportion of clients reviewed or assessed in the last 12 months

81.2% 81.9% 80.3%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Yardley Citywide Citywide (target)

12 month average Selly Oak Citywide Perry Barr Edgbaston Northfield Ladywood Sutton Hall Green Yardley Hodge Hill Erdington lowest Highest 72.0% 76.5% 76.5% 78.8% 80.3% 80.6% 80.8% 81.1% 82.9% 83.3% Performance for people under non-constituency teams: 76.5% 81.0%

Proportion of completed safeguarding enquiries where the person was asked about their desired outcomes

100.0%

87.5% 88.9%

Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17 Dec 17 Jan 18 Feb 18 Mar 18 Apr 18 May 18

Yardley Citywide Citywide (target)

Page 66 of 74

Health and Social Care Overview & Scrutiny Committee 2018/19 Work Programme

Committee Members: Chair: Cllr Rob Pocock

Cllr Akhlaq Ahmed Cllr Saddak Miah Cllr Nicky Brennan Cllr Chauhdry Rashid Cllr Mick Brown Cllr Suzanne Webb Cllr Peter Fowler

Committee Support: Scrutiny Team: Rose Kiely (303 1730) / Gail Sadler (303 1901) Committee Manager: Errol Wilson (675 0955) Schedule of Work

Meeting Committee Agenda Items Officers Date 19th June 2018 Formal Session

Send out – Appointments to Deputy Chair and JHOSCs 7th June 2018 Informal Session

NHS Birmingham and Solihull CCG Paul Sherriff, Director of Organisational Developments & Partnerships; Gemma Coldicott, Head of Communications & Engagement, BSol CCG

Healthwatch Birmingham Andy Cave, Chief Executive, Healthwatch Birmingham

Adult Social Care and Health – Member Briefing Melanie Brooks, Interim Assistant Director, Community Services, Adult Social Care & Health

Public Health Dennis Wilkes, Acting Director of Public Health

Adult Social Care and Health – Overview of Performance Management Mike Walsh, Head of Service – Intelligence, Strategy & Prioritisation, Commissioning Centre of Excellence

Health & Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee Page 0167 of 74 Work Programme – July 2018

Live healthy, Live happy – Strategy Overview – Birmingham and Solihull Rachel O’Connor, STP Director of Planning and Performance, BSol CCG

17th July 2018 Early Years Update re Childhood Obesity Dennis Wilkes, Assistant Director, Send out – Public Health 5th July 2018 Younger Adults Day Service Consolidation – Lessons Learnt Melanie Brooks, Interim Assistant Director, Social Care & Health

Adult Social Care Performance Monitoring Mike Walsh, Head of Service – Intelligence, Strategy & Prioritisation, Commissioning Centre of Excellence

18th September New Approach in Adult Social Care Pauline Mugridge, 2018 Acting Assistant Director, Community Send out – Services 6th September 2018 Tracking of ‘The Impact of Poor Air Quality on Health’ Inquiry David Harris, Transportation Policy Manager

Tracking of the ‘Homeless Health’ Inquiry John Hardy, Commissioning Manager

Tracking of the ‘Living Life to the full with Dementia’ Inquiry Zoeta Manning, Commissioning Manager, BSol CCG

16th October Cabinet Member for Health and Social Care Update Report Councillor Paulette 2018 Hamilton; Suman McCartney, Cabinet Send out – Support Officer 4th October 2018  Public Health Priorities Becky Pollard, Interim Director of Public Health

Birmingham Safeguarding Adults Board Report Cherry Dale, Independent Chair of the Birmingham Safeguarding Adults Board

Forward Thinking Birmingham Update Elaine Kirwan, Associate Director of Nursing

Page 0268 of 74

16th October Mental Health Recovery and Employment Gemma Coldicott, Head 2018 of Communications and Engagement, BSol CCG Send out – 4th October 2018 The Outcome of the STP Engagement Programme Rachel O’Connor, Director of Planning & Performance, BSOl CCG

STP – Public Health Becky Pollard, Interim Director of Public Health

20th November Birmingham Substance Misuse Recovery System (CGL) Max Vaughan, Head of 2018 Service, Universal and Prevention – Send out – Commissioning 8th November 2018 Update on Day Opportunities Strategy Melanie Brooks, Interim Assistant Director, Community Services

Adult Social Care Performance Monitoring Mike Walsh, Head of Service – Intelligence, Strategy & Prioritisation, Commissioning Centre of Excellence

18th December Local Performance Account 17/18 Mike Walsh, Head of 2018 Service – Intelligence, Strategy & Send out – Prioritisation, 6th December Commissioning Centre 2018 of Excellence

22nd January 2019

Send out – 10th January 2019

19th February Birmingham Sexual Health Services – Umbrella (UHB) Max Vaughan, Head of 2019 Service, Universal and Prevention Send out – 7th February Adult Social Care Performance Scorecard Monitoring Mike Walsh, Head of 2019 Service – Intelligence, Strategy & Prioritisation, Commissioning Centre of Excellence

Health & Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee Page 0369 of 74 Work Programme – July 2018

19th March 2019 Birmingham Community Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust Quality Account Carol Herbert, Clinical 2018/19 Quality Assurance Send out – Manager, BCHC 7th March 2019

16th April 2019

Send out – 4th April 2019

14th May 2019 Adult Social Care Performance Monitoring Mike Walsh, Head of Service – Intelligence, Send out – Strategy & 2nd May 2019 Prioritisation, Commissioning Centre of Excellence

Items to be scheduled in Work Programme

 Adult Social Care Commissioning Strategy (Graeme Betts)  Enablement Service Review (Graeme Betts)  Ageing Well Programme (Graeme Betts)  Shared Lives Service Re-design (Graeme Betts)  Implementation of the Homeless Strategy (and linkages with the healthcare system) - (John Hardy).  Neighbourhood Networks Programme (Graeme Betts)  Local Authority Social Services and National Health Service Complaints Annual Report for 2017/18 (Fran Zain)  CQC Local System Review Action Plan (Mike Walsh)  Is the STP arrangement working for West Birmingham? (Paul Sherriff/Gemma Coldicott)  Paediatric Surgery at the Royal Orthopaedic Hospital – (Kieren Caldwell, NHS England)

Page 0470 of 74

Joint Birmingham & Sandwell Health Scrutiny Committee Work Members Cllrs Rob Pocock, Mick Brown, Chauhdry Rashid, Paul Tilsley and Suzanne Webb Meeting Date Key Topics Contacts July 2018  Sandwell and West Birmingham Solid Tumour Oncology and Specialised Catherine O’Connell, Birmingham Gynaecology Cancer Surgery Services Update Director of TBC Specialised Commissioning, Midlands and East; Scott Hancock, Project Lead, Head of Operational Performance and Business Management Support, UHB; Toby Lewis, Chief Executive, Sandwell & West Birmingham NHS Trust.

 Update on the Midland Metropolitan Hospital Toby Lewis, Chief Executive, Sandwell & West Birmingham NHS Trust.

 Outcome of Consultation into Proposed Changes to 2 GP Practices in Andy Williams, Sandwell and 1 GP Practice in West Birmingham Accountable Officer, SWBCCG.

TBC  Report on the Outcome of the Engagement Phase on Improving Access Andy Williams, to Local Health Services and Same Day Access Accountable Officer, SWBCCG; Jayne Salter-Scott, Head of Engagement & Communication, SWBCCG.

TBC  BSol CCG and SWB CCG – Single Commissioning for West Birmingham Paul Jennings, CEO, BSol CCG

Health & Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee Page 0571 of 74 Work Programme – July 2018

Joint Birmingham & Solihull Health Scrutiny Committee Work Members Cllrs Rob Pocock, Akhlaq Ahmed, Nicky Brennan, Mick Brown, Peter Fowler, Saddak Miah and Suzanne Webb Meeting Date Key Topics Contacts 18 July 2018 at  BSol CCG – Urgent Treatment Centres in Birmingham and Solihull Paul Jennings, CEO, 5.00pm BSol CCG Birmingham  BSol CCG – Quality, Innovation, Productivity and Prevention (QIPP) Phil Johns, Chief Programme Finance Officer

September/  NHS England (West Midlands) Community Dental Services Review – Howard Thompson, October Update on Engagement and Consultation Supplier Manager – Dental NHS England – West Midlands

 Provision of General Anaesthetic Services in the NHS England (West Nuala Woodman, Midlands) – Update Report on Feedback from Consultation Deputy Head of Commissioning (dental), NHS West Midlands

 Outcome of engagement events on Proposed Harmonised Treatment Rhona Woosey, Policies Network & Commissioning Manager; Ben Panton, Transformation Project Manager, Transformation & Innovation – Arden & GEM CSU; Cherry Shaw, Senior Communications Lead, Arden & GEM CSU.

 BSol CCG – Communication and Engagement Strategy Gemma Coldicott, Head of Communications and Engagement, BSol CCG

Page 0672 of 74

CHAIR & COMMITTEE VISITS Date Organisation Contact TBA Possible visit to Pause/FTB Services Elaine Kirwan

INQUIRY: Key Question: Lead Member: Lead Officer: Inquiry Members: Evidence Gathering: Drafting of Report: Report to Council:

Councillor Call for Action requests

Cabinet Forward Plan - Items in the Cabinet Forward Plan that may be of interest to the Committee

Item no. Item Name Proposed date 005046/2018 Adult Social Care and Health – Day Opportunities Strategy 31 July 18 005138/2018 Enablement Service 31 July 18 005276/2018 Younger Adults Day Care Consolidation – Adult Social Care & Health 31 July 18 005299/2018 Birmingham Carers Vision and Commissioning Strategy 2017+ 31 July 18 005327/2018 PURE: Placing Vulnerable Adult Residents into Employment and 31 July 18 Training 005332/2018 Procurement of an Integrated Community Equipment Loan Service 18 Sept 18

Health & Social Care Overview and Scrutiny Committee Page 0773 of 74 Work Programme – July 2018

Page 74 of 74