Agenda item

At the meeting on 8^t September 2008 the Executive Member requested that the final service delivery model for in-house home care be brought back to the committee after the staff consultation process, and before its implementation.  This report (and annexes) reviews the background to the need for changes and the final, proposed Service Delivery Model. It also outlines the consultation process that has been followed since the initial proposal was first presented to staff back in late July, the key messages received from staff during that process and how the Home Care  Efficiencies Project Board has responded to these and how it is anticipated the service delivery model will achieve the necessary efficiencies and improve outcomes for customers

Advice of the Advisory Panel

That the Executive Member be advised to agree the proposed service delivery model.

Decision of the Executive Member

RESOLVED:             That the advice of the Advisory Panel be accepted and endorsed.

REASON:                  To improve outcomes for customers and achieve the required budget savings for 2009-10.

Prior to the consideration of this item, the Chair had agreed to receive representations on this agenda item from Heather McKenzie of Unison.

Ms McKenzie stated that overall Unison was pleased with the consultation process and that past inconsistencies in administration policy had been identified, relating to downtime and non-contact time. However, other concerns were expressed with regard to the staff plan, the IT system and its abilities to produce efficiencies, and it was felt that more discussion with regard to the new system would have been helpful. Concerns were also expressed about the reduction in home care managers from six to four.  With regard to the re-ablement efforts, it was felt that even best efforts might be jeopardised as the over-charging policy was not being looked at and there were concerns expressed about the cost to customers.

Generally Ms McKenzie reported Unison was pleased with the increase in team leader hours, but was less sure about the future. With regard to the removal of the 9 to 2 shift, it was felt that this posed a problem for recruitment. Concern was also expressed about the 15-hour minimum contract, especially for those staff in receipt of tax credit who had to work a minimum of 16 hours in order to be eligible for this benefit. Concerns were also expressed about the merging of the EMI support team and that the paperwork was not ready for full consultation. It was highlighted that the main concern of staff was the implementation of the new structure, accommodation, existing working hours, the use of pool cars and training. It was also felt that it was essential to maintain good communication and give consideration to staff and their circumstances.

Members then considered the Home Care Efficiencies Project – Final Proposal. At the meeting on 8 September 2008 Members had considered an item on In-house Home Care – Revised Delivery Model and requested that the final delivery model for in-house home care be brought back to them after the staff consultation process and before its implementation.

At this meeting, Members considered the report, which reviewed the background to the need for changes and set out the final proposed Service Delivery Model. It also outlined the consultation process that had been followed since the initial proposal was first presented to staff back in late July, the key messages received from staff during that process and how the Home Care Efficiencies Project Board had responded to these and how it was anticipated the service delivery model would achieve the necessary efficiencies and improve outcomes for customers.

The Assistant Director, Service Delivery and Transformation, stated that the report was the work of a Project Board to further improve services and focus on customers, to get people off the long-term packages of care and back home. It was noted that with recent demographic trends there had been an increase in the demand for dementia care and that it was important to improve the continuity of care and to have as few people involved as possible. It was stated that the saving target was £950,000.

The Officer stated that the contribution of the unions was recognised and that this had helped to reassure staff and that the process of consultation had improved services and identified continuous improvements. How the efficiencies were to be achieved was outlined in Annex 6 to the report, including efficient rostering and the merging of teams, and that this was seen as important to retain frontline staff.

The officer further confirmed that although the number of team leaders would be reduced, team leader hours would be increased and two temporary team leader posts would be created, but these posts would be reviewed in the next six to nine months.

The officer confirmed that the council would accommodate a variety of work hours within shift patterns and would seek to recruit to as many hours as possible. On the issue of rostered hours and shift patterns, staff had indicated that rostered hours had matched the demand from customers. On the question of the merging of the EMI and High Dependency and Night team into one Care Service it was stated that job description changes would be needed with further consultation and that this was underway.

With regard to property implications, the officer stated that following meetings with tenants that the response was strong from Glen Lodge. Concerns about parking, noise and security were raised across the other three sites. The officer stated that time was needed to look at finding alternative office accommodation and that the least impact option would be considered.

In response to the comments made by Heather McKenzie of UNISON, the officer stated that the staff plan was a robust system suitable for more stable groups of customers. Further, it was stated that the Project Board would be meeting on the 28 February to talk about the next stage of implementation, the HR implications and the training programme.

Members then raised various points to which officers responded:

·        With regard to Gale Farm and Glen Lodge and the issue of parking, it was noted by officers that it was not just the issue of parking, at Gale Farm in particular, but of traders parking in the surgery and local streets and this had been taken up and instructions would be issued to staff.

·        That the review would be brought back to the Panel.

·        The importance of providing a good service was noted and that the 9 to 2 shift had suited mothers with primary school children. It was also noted by Members that the wording of the advertising was important and advertising only 15 hours per week was likely to reduce the potential pool of workers for these jobs. Officers confirmed that recruitment could be within the parameters of 15 to 30 hours per week.

·        On the question of the new IT system, the officer confirmed that the system had been designed with input from users and that feedback from other authorities using the system was that it was fairly easy to use and provided useful and robust performance data.

·        Members also raised the issue of the importance of high priority of service delivery.

The Executive member noted that in the current turbulent time in social care that it was important to have a service that would respond quickly and well.

Advice of the Advisory Panel

That the Executive Member be advised to agree the proposed service delivery model.

Decision of the Executive Member

RESOLVED:             That the advice of the Advisory Panel be accepted and endorsed.

REASON:                  To improve outcomes for customers and achieve the required budget savings for 2009-10.