Agenda item

8.1

Eddie Sherwood, Director of Adult Social Care, submitted a report providing an update on the progress on the choice and control given to people receiving Adult Social Care, and providing an overview of how personalisation would continue to be implemented across Adult Social Care.

8.2

The report was supported by a presentation from Jeanette Thompson, Service Manager, Personalisation, and Jon Brenner, Programme Manager, and accompanied by Eddie Sherwood.

8.3

The presentation provided an explanation as to what self-directed support involved, details of what had been done in Sheffield, in terms of headlines, process redesign and market development, what had been achieved in terms of choice and control, and what benefits had been achieved by individuals, as well as the impact the work had had on them.  The presentation also provided information on how Sheffield compared to other local authorities, details of the on-going challenges and what the next steps for personalisation were in Sheffield.

8.4

Members of the Committee and representatives of Sheffield LINk raised questions and the following responses were provided:-

·            Officers were trying to put all the various information together to make it as easy as possible for individuals to manage their personal health budgets.  It was accepted that there was a need to make people fully aware of what their personal financial contribution would be, and there were systems in place to ensure that charges regarding Section117 were only made where relevant.

·            If an individual’s care needs changed, there was always scope to review their needs.  The policy in terms of how this was done had recently been reviewed and if anyone’s needs did change, this would automatically trigger a re-assessment. 

·            The individual’s Support Plan would determine what training the Personal Assistant would require.  Details of all Personal Assistants were maintained on a database, and they were regularly informed about relevant training courses, which were held at the Brockwood Training Centre.  The Training Support Grant was used to pay for such training courses.  Officers were presently looking at issues where the individuals had complex care needs. 

·            Some clients undertook all roles, such as payroll and tax.  A number of organisations do exist that can help people with some or all of the functions they require. This is paid for from the person’s personal budget. Most individuals paid the standard rate for their Personal Assistants. However, those with more complex requirements would pay more. 

·            In terms of Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks, if there was a child in the household, the Personal Assistant would be legally required to undertake a CRB check.  Whilst there was no legal requirement if there were no children in the house, it was recommended that employers undertook such a check on prospective staff.

·            In terms of direct payments, under the present arrangements, officers had a better idea of what individuals were spending their money on, therefore checks could be made as to how the money had been spent.  If there was a capacity issue, the Council would identify groups or organisations which could organise this on behalf of the individual.  Audits of the individual’s bank accounts were undertaken every three months, as part of a check to find out how the money had been spent.

·            Individuals were expected to find their own Personal Assistants.  People need to work out what they wanted from an Assistant and that helped to inform where to start looking for one. This has always been the case and some agencies do offer assistance with this process.

·            If an individual did not want to receive direct payments, they should still get an equal opportunity in terms of choice and control as to whether they wanted a provider to sort things out for them.

·            There was no age limit in terms of the Personal Assistants.  It was entirely up to the individual as to who they wanted to act as their  Assistant.  Most individuals did not want carers visiting them in their homes, and considered that Personal Assistants gave them greater flexibility.

·            Individuals were provided with advice on how to incorporate payments such as holiday cover/sickness into the payments. A spreadsheet/calculator has been developed to help with this process.

(NOTE: At this stage in the proceedings, the Chair left the meeting, and Councillor Roger Davison took the Chair for the remainder of the meeting.)

·            Individuals would complete an assessment questionnaire in order to evaluate how much they were provided in terms of a personal budget.  They would be awarded points in terms of how they responded to questions, relating to their care needs.  People could be awarded a maximum of 100 points, although based on analysis of the questionnaire, very few people scored above 70 points.  However, whenever people were able to demonstrate that they had additional care needs, officers would have to include this within the decision-making process.

·            It was accepted that there could be delays in people receiving their payments if the information they had provided was not accurate. The Council was introducing an electronic scheme, which would hopefully speed the process up.  Also, there was a more robust team of officers, who would assist to help speed up the process, including carrying out the audits.

·            In terms of potential delays in getting individuals into the system following their initial assessment, officers had undertaken considerable work on this issue, which had included changing the structure of the Teams, which had resulted in more staff working on the initial assessments in order to speed up the process.

8.5

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)       notes the information contained in the report now submitted, the information reported as part of the presentation and the responses to the questions raised;

(b)       thanks Eddie Sherwood, Jeanette Thompson and Jon Brenner for attending the meeting and responding to the questions; and

(c)        requests Eddie Sherwood to submit a further progress report on Self Directed Support and Personalisation, to a meeting of the Committee in approximately one year’s time.