Agenda and minutes

Apologies for lateness were received for Councillor Clouder.

Apologies for absence were received for Guy Van Dichele (Executive Director for Health, Wellbeing and Adults).

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 24 April 2019 as an accurate record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 24 April 2019 were agreed as an accurate record, with the following amendments:

1)      Item 15/19 - Addition of the follow up report from Director of District Centres and Regeneration arising from the Special Sheltered Housing Item.

2)      Item 15/19 – Page 2, Paragraph 1 – Correction: “The Panel heard that seven of these sites were run by Care UK, who had subcontracted to London Care”. This previously stated six sites.

3)      Item 15/19 – Page 2, Paragraph 4 – Amended to reflect the whole Panel’s endorsement of moving all sites from ‘Good’ CQC ratings to ‘Outstanding’.

4)      Item 15/19 – Page 4, Paragraph 4 – Addition of the line “The Panel raised concerns about whether it might be more beneficial for mental health patients to receive care in hospitals, or through the South London and Maudsley Trust”.

In accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct and the statutory provisions of the Localism Act, Members and co-opted Members of the Council are reminded that it is a requirement to register disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) and gifts and hospitality to the value of which exceeds £50 or multiple gifts and/or instances of hospitality with a cumulative value of £50 or more when received from a single donor within a rolling twelve month period. In addition, Members and co-opted Members are reminded that unless their disclosable pecuniary interest is registered on the register of interests or is the subject of a pending notification to the Monitoring Officer, they are required to disclose those disclosable pecuniary interests at the meeting. This should be done by completing the Disclosure of Interest form and handing it to the Democratic Services representative at the start of the meeting. The Chair will then invite Members to make their disclosure orally at the commencement of Agenda item 3. Completed disclosure forms will be provided to the Monitoring Officer for inclusion on the Register of Members’ Interests.

There were none.

To receive notice of any business not on the agenda which in the opinion of the Chair, by reason of special circumstances, be considered as a matter of urgency.

There were no items of urgent business.

Two adult safeguarding social workers will present two anonymised cases with the purpose of facilitating a discussion regarding the challenges and dilemmas involved in adult safeguarding, and how it can make a difference to people’s lives.

The first Experienced Social Worker introduced themselves, and informed the Panel that they had worked in the council Children’s department for three years before moving to the Adults team, and went through the details of the first case study.

The case study concerned a 90 year old resident (Resident A). This had been a complex case which involved the challenges of meeting Residents A’s wishes while dealing with issues of mental capacity and dementia, which had led to a decline in health. This case had been subject to an application to the court of protection, as the challenges had needed a legal framework.

In response to questions from the Panel about what could have been done to maintain Resident A’s independence, Members heard that the court could have listed the case and responded faster. Members acknowledged the difficulties in dealing with cases of hoarding, with experience of residents hoarding in their wards. A Member informed the Panel that work had been done with the Head of Public Protection to negotiate with fire services and get houses cleared while avoiding the courts, and suggested this for future cases. Members agreed that residents admitted to care homes could become institutionalised very quickly, and queried what other options, such as assisted living, had been considered to help Resident A maintain independence. The Panel learned that other options had been considered.

The Head of Adult Safeguarding and Quality Assurance highlighted the complexity of the case, with Resident A having the capacity to state that he did not want his family involved, and the difficulty of deciding when to proceed as normal and when to involve the courts. Involving the courts did not always improve the situation, as all decisions then had to go through the court process which reduced flexibility and the ability to manage the case.

Resident A had two social workers (one from the locality team and one from the safeguarding team) and had a good relationship with both; however, he would not take advice from either. The environmental team had talked to Resident A following complaints from neighbours about flies, but he would not let them into the property for an assessment.

In response to questions about how common this kind of case was, the Interim Service Manager stated at the last Croydon Vulnerability and Risk Management Panel they had attended there had been six cases, and five of these had concerned self-neglect or hoarding. The Breakthrough counselling Group Project (discussed at the January 2019 meeting of the Panel) had been helping residents identified with hoarding tendencies in collaboration with Mind. The Head of Adult Safeguarding and Quality Assurance informed the Panel that funding for this project over three years had been secured. In response to queries from the Chair about the limited number of residents who could participate at once, and the waiting list to join, Members heard that the approach had been to develop a variety of options to help those struggling with hoarding, such as work done with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25/19

This report sets out the last twelve months progress of the Adapt programme and what is planned through to March 2020.

The Head of Innovation and Change introduced the item, and reminded Members that this would be the third update on the Adapt programme. The last update to the Panel had been in June 2018, and this report covered the 12 months following.

There had been some delay in implementing the new e-marketplace, although through the new Croydon Digital Service, the issues were being resolved. In response to questions about the timeline for completing this work, the Panel heard that the target had been November 2019, with testing on the e-marketplace, information and advice and community directory taking place in September 2019. It was planned to be a ‘one-stop shop’ for services, and Members would be shown how it worked to enable them to help residents.

There had been an improvement in provider engagement events, which had been attended by over 200 different suppliers. A key intention discussed was, where appropriate, to enable more people to live in supported accommodation, rather than unnecessarily being placed in residential care. Forecasts had suggested there needed to be an additional 280 units of supported living stock before 2024, and work would be done to figure out how best to deliver this; 38 units had been secured since June 2018.

Members learned that a consultation on a new Direct Payments policy had begun, and residents could give their views and get involved at the following link: www.croydon.gov.uk/directpayment_consultation. Carers, families and residents had been encouraged to engage with the consultation.

A Virtual Wallet system had been procured for direct payments, and would allow users to buy care and support services. The advantage of this would be that providers could be paid faster, which the market had been responding to. Testing would be done with managed accounts first, before being rolled out to the remaining direct payment users.

Members expressed concern about direct payments, with many elderly people not being online or using emails. Members had witnessed multiple launches of other direct payment schemes, and stated this caused them some scepticism in regard to this one. The Head of Innovation and Change responded that direct payments user groups, amongst other service user groups, had already been engaged following an equality impact assessment, and would continue to form a key element of the user testing for the virtual wallet before it went live. All direct payment users had been written to asking for comments on the current direct payments policy.

Following this, Members discussed whether the programme had engaged widely enough with the public on consultations, and cited the new charging policy engagement. Members were concerned that the letters that had been sent had discussed removing a subsidy, without enough information on what it meant for them, which had caused some residents to panic, as the communications had not kept the audience in mind. The Chair responded that a review of the letters would be undertaken, to ensure that they would be properly tailored to vulnerable people.

Members felt that there had not been enough engagement with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26/19

This report provides a progress update on the ‘Borough Feedback’ recommendations presented to Full Council in July 2018, which emerged from the June 2018 London Association of Directors of Social Services (ADASS) ‘Use of Resources’ peer review.

The Director of Integration and Innovation introduced and summarised the report, which provided a progress update on the ‘Borough Feedback’ recommendations presented to Full Council in July 2018; these emerged from the June 2018 London Association of Directors of Social Services (ADASS) ‘Use of Resources’ peer review.

Members praised the work being done, and commented on how well projects seemed to be integrated, with everyone on the same page. The Panel queried how demand would be managed and how commissioning could be done where there was not enough supply to meet the demand, referring specifically to nursing staff, supported living stock and dementia support. The Panel queried whether this had been apparent during the Dynamic Purchasing System consultation.

The Director of Integration and Innovation responded that lessons had been learned from One Croydon, which had a good model, but which struggled to recruit to all its positions as the staff had not been there. Creative work had been undertaken to look at different types of roles and to link services together, with the example given of a hybrid role that had been made to appeal more to GPs. The possibility of pooling budgets would be looked into. Work to secure accommodation had involved looking at strategic partnerships, and utilising the alliance whilst building relationships with registered providers. There had been improvements to the workforce strategy, and new HR procedures would be implemented, alongside increased staff engagement.

Members commented that a recent Scrutiny Health & Social Care Sub-Committee meeting had revealed that Croydon Health Services (CHS) had been struggling to recruit to some roles, which could lead to patients being discharged too soon, which would undermine the work of One Croydon. The Panel learned that the CHS director had set up a workforce committee that they had been keen for the council to participate in. Council and CHS HR had worked together, and would produce a shared workforce plan to aid recruitment and staff retention. It was also hoped that the cultures of the two organisations could be aligned. It was not possible to increase things like nursing supply, but it would be possible to make Croydon an appealing place to work. The Chair reminded the Panel that the social workers who had completed their assessed and supported year in employment (ASYE) and who had spoken at the Panel in January 2019 had fed back that the support they had received in Croydon had made them want to stay, despite not being local, and this was evidence that this could be achieved. The new way of working in Croydon had been attracting new staff, but it was understood there were still shortages of supply for some roles.

In response to queries from Members about the impact of moving to an all age model, the Panel heard that development through the locality development programme needed to continue to ensure a bespoke offer for residents.

The following motion is to be moved and seconded where it is proposed to exclude the press and public from the remainder of a meeting:

“That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within those paragraphs indicated in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended.”

The following motion was moved by Councillor Bird and seconded by Councillor Hopley to exclude the press and public:

“That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within those paragraphs indicated in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended.”

The motion was put and it was agreed by the Committee to exclude the press and public for the remainder of the meeting.

To approve the Part B minutes of the meeting held on 24 April 2019 as an accurate record.

The Part B minutes of the meeting held on 24 April 2019 were agreed as an accurate record.

The purpose of this report is to update the Adult Social Services Review Panel on the key developments in Croydon in regards to Adult Safeguarding.

The Panel received an update on Adult Safeguarding in Croydon.