Supplementary Information
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Public Document Pack Scrutiny Board (Adult Social Services, Public Health, NHS) – 28 June 2016 Supplementary Information Agenda Item 11 – Better Lives Strategy in Leeds This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 11 Report author: Steven Courtney Tel: 24 74707 Report of the Head of Scrutiny and Member Development Report to Scrutiny Board (Children’s Services) Date: 28 June 2016 Subject: The Better Lives Strategy in Leeds Are specific electoral Wards affected? Yes No If relevant, name(s) of Ward(s): Hyde Park and Woodhouse Are there implications for equality and diversity and cohesion and Yes No integration? Is the decision eligible for Call-In? Yes No Does the report contain confidential or exempt information? Yes No If relevant, Access to Information Procedure Rule number: Appendix number: 1.0 Purpose 1.1 The purpose of this report is introduce two requests for scrutiny, alongside a report from the Director of Adult Social Services setting out the background and findings of recent consultation regarding proposals on the future provision of Council care home and day-centre services. 2.0 Report from the Director of Adult Social Services 2.1 In September 2015 Executive Board considered the report ‘Delivering the Better Lives Strategy in Leeds – Proposed Next Steps’ and approved that consultation should commence on the proposed closure of Middlecross, Siegen Manor and The Green Care Homes and their attached Day Centres along with Radcliffe Lane and Springfield Day Centres. It also approved consultation to commence on the proposed decommissioning of Wykebeck Day Centre and recommissioning of the unit as a specialist day service for complex needs. 2.2 Public consultation which took place from 1October 2015 to 23 December 2015, with feedback received from residents, families, carers and staff – set out in the attached report from the Director of Adult Social Services (Annex A). As set out in that report, the findings will be considered by the Executive Board when making its decision on the future of the Council’s care homes and day centres. Page 1 3.0 Requests for Scrutiny 3.1 In January 2016, the Scrutiny Board (Adult Social Services, Public Health, NHS) received a petition/ request for scrutiny in relation to The Green care home; and agreed to consider the issues raised in more detail through a working group of the Scrutiny Board. A working group meeting was held on 16 March 2016 and a final response to the issues considered was agreed by the Scrutiny Board in April 2016. In that response, the Scrutiny Board made the following recommendation: That any decision regarding the long-term future of The Green be deferred for a minimum of 2 years, in order to: a) Re-consider the comparative costs of provision as the impact of a national living wage and the requirements of the Care Act 2014 take effect locally. b) Assess the occupancy levels achieved through positive promotion of The Green to local residents and beyond. c) Re-assess the overall ‘quality landscape’ across the care sector in Leeds and specifically the quality of alternative nearby provision in the independent sector. 3.2 Since that time, two further requests for scrutiny have been received in relation to: Siegen Manor (May 2016); and, All three care homes and attached day centres, with particular emphasis on Middlecross (June 2016). Siegen Manor 3.3 Details of the request included, ‘I am sending this email to request the Scrutiny Board to undertake an enquiry into Siegen Manor Resource Centre, Wesley Street, Morley LS27 9EE ("Siegen") similar to the one that has taken place on The Green. This request is made on behalf of the families of the residents at Siegen and we would ask that a similar analysis of the figures is undertaken on Siegen.’ 3.4 This request for scrutiny was subsequently supported by Andrea Jenkyns MP as detailed in the attached letter. Middlecross 3.5 Details of the request included, ‘I appeal to the members of the board to look again at the closing of these 3 council homes and attached day centres and if possible to reverse the decision to close them.’ 3.6 Both requests for scrutiny included some personal details, which are not provided as part of this report (for reasons of confidentiality). However, the full details of both requests have been shared with members of the Scrutiny Board; and, in line with standard practice, those submitting the requests for scrutiny have been invited to attend the Scrutiny Board to outline the rationale of the requests and any supplementary details. Page 2 Options for the Scrutiny Board 3.7 When considering the information presented, the Scrutiny Board (Adult Social Services, Public Health, NHS) may wish to determine: If sufficient information to the satisfaction of the Board has been provided to enable the Scrutiny Board to reach a conclusion and where necessary make recommendations. If further information is required before additional scrutiny is undertaken If a similar or related issue is already being examined by Scrutiny or has been considered by Scrutiny recently. Whether a full inquiry should be undertaken, if the matter raised is of sufficient significance and has the potential for scrutiny to produce realistic recommendations that could be implemented and lead to tangible improvements. Where the Board considers further work should be undertaken, the impact on the Board’s current workload and the time available to undertake further scrutiny and The level of resources required to carry out further scrutiny. 3.8 It should be noted the decision whether or not to further investigate matters raised by a request for scrutiny is the sole responsibility of the Scrutiny Board. As such, any decision in this regard is final and there is no right of appeal. 3.0 Recommendations 3.1 The Scrutiny Board is asked to: (i) Consider the details presented in the report from the Director of Adult Social Services and determine the Board’s response and/or any further scrutiny activity. (ii) Consider the requests for scrutiny received, including any supporting evidence, and determine whether or not the Scrutiny Board (Adult Social Services, Public Health, NHS) wishes to undertake further scrutiny of this matter. (iii) Make recommendations as deemed appropriate. 4.0 Background Papers None1 1 The background documents listed in this section are available to download from the council’s website, unless they contain confidential or exempt information. The list of background documents does not include published works. Page 3 This page is intentionally left blank Report author: Cath Roff Tel: 0113 37 83884 Report of: Director of Adult Social Services Report to: Scrutiny Board (Adult Social Care, Public Health, NHS) Date: 28th June 2016 Subject: Delivering the Better Lives Strategy in Leeds –Progress Report Are specific electoral wards affected? Yes No If relevant, name(s) of ward(s): Armley, Beeston & Holbeck, Gipton & Harehills, Killingbeck & Seacroft, Morley South and Pudsey Are there implications for equality and diversity and cohesion and Yes No integration? Is the decision eligible for call-In? Yes No Does the report contain confidential or exempt information? Yes No If relevant, access to information procedure rule number: Appendix number: 1. Summary of main issues 1.1. On 23rd September 2015 the report ‘Delivering the Better Lives Strategy in Leeds – Proposed Next Steps’ was considered by the Executive Board. The report informed members that “the cost of purchasing independent sector provision at the actual in-house occupancy levels at three care homes (Middlecross, Siegen Manor and The Green) / attendance levels at four day centres (Middlecross, Siegen Manor, Springfield and The Green) would offer the Council a saving of £2.186m”. 1.2. This report followed on from an extensive viability review of Middlecross, Siegen Manor and The Green care homes and day centres, which was completed in July 2015. The review was carried out in conjunction with Trade Unions and staff and concluded that no other formal service reconfiguration could deliver a business case to financially justify the continued operation of the homes and day centres. This was due to the availability of alternative provision within the independent sector at a lower cost. The ongoing viability of the care homes and day centres is further questioned when reviewing the capital costs associated with maintaining the buildings to an acceptable standard in the coming years. 1.3. The viability review also considered three ‘stand-alone’ day centres – Radcliffe Lane, Springfield and Wykebeck and concluded that a business case could not be made for their continued use due to falling attendance levels and the $miximewd.doc p1 Page 5 development of alternative community based services. Alternative models of service delivery were considered and in the case of Wykebeck it was proposed that the unit should be recommissioned to become one of three retained day centres offering a city-wide specialist day service for older people with complex needs. 1.4. In line with the recommendations made in the 23rd September 2015 report ‘Delivering the Better Lives Strategy in Leeds – Proposed Next Steps’, Executive Board approved that consultation should commence on the proposed closure of Middlecross, Siegen Manor and The Green Care Homes and their attached Day Centres along with Radcliffe Lane and Springfield Day Centres. It also approved consultation to commence on the proposed decommissioning of Wykebeck Day Centre and recommissioning of the unit as a specialist day service for complex needs. 1.5. The consultation exercise which took place from 1st October to 23rd December 2015 has received feedback from residents, families, carers and staff. The findings will be considered by the Executive Board when making their decision on the future of the Council’s care homes and day centres.