Come join in the efforts to improve Dementia Care in Surrey. In light of the release of the Dementia and Older People’s Mental Health Strategy, the Dementia Project Team are aiming to build partnerships with the Care Home Providers of the county – to share ideas, experiences and understanding. We’d like to start by talking about;

-          Person centred care - what this actually means for the Provider and service user

-          How can we work together to reduce admissions into hospital- keeping our residents comfortable and safe within the home

-          The role Care home providers have in supporting the wider community

Flyer and Booking Details

Do you have a good story to tell?

Dignity in Action day is on 1st February.  SCC are looking for good news stories on providers who have dignity champions and any events they will be having to support the day and how they promote dignity on a daily basis.

If you have something to share please let Jenni in the office know.

Erica Lockhart 12 Jan 2012

A new report has been developed by Skills for Care in consultation with employers. The report is for individual establishments who are logged into NMDS-SC to download which will detail whether the establishment meets the NMDS-SC requirements for claiming the workforce development fund (WDF). If they do it will tell them when they met the requirements and if they do not it will tell them whether this is because their establishment data, worker data or both require updating.

Hyper links to the “my establishment report” and “my worker list”  are included and running these reports will highlight the gaps in the data so that updates can be made. The “my worker list” report has changed slightly as all the fields for funding are grouped together under a banner.

The new report is a live report so that an employer can run it, make the updates, run it again and get an updated position.  This prevents establishments having to contact the helpdesk to find out if their data meets the NMDS-SC requirements for WDF but if any support is required with NMDS-SC then please direct people to the helpdesk as usual.

Details of the new report are available in the news section of the NMDS-SC website.  An article is also being included in the Skills for Care enews and an email has been sent via the NMDS-SC system to make employers aware of the latest changes, including this new report.

UKHCA cautions councils over homecare funding

In response to evidence we have received from a number of UKHCA members of councils cutting contract prices and reducing homecare services, we have now written formally to over 750 officers and elected members of every council in England and Wales. (This has been featured in the social care press.)

We emphasise the importance of homecare to service users and the need to protect their interests and well-being. However, the aim of our letter is to convince councils to get their base-line pricing right and avoid swingeing cost-cutting.

We point out that judicial reviews are complex and create unnecessary public expense. They are also limited in what they can achieve, often being about challenging contract process rather than content.

We highlighted to councils the increasing appetite of care agencies to use the courts to remedy the catastrophically deteriorating funding of homecare delivered by independent and voluntary sector providers, and queried whether authorities have undertaken an accurate assessment of the legitimate, current and future costs faced by homecare providers.

Drawing councils’ attention to recent judicial reviews against Sefton and Pembrokeshire County Councils and a recent announcement by Staffordshire County Council that it would review care fees for residential services, we reminded councils that the funding of homecare services has also been vulnerable to public sector spending cuts and is an essential component of every councils’ response to the increasing number of challenges being mounted in the courts.

Advising councils that legal challenges carry considerable financial and resource costs for both parties long before they reach the courts, we proposed six key issues which councils should consider carefully when responding to their budgetary constraints, asking each authority’s Chief Executive to respond with the council's current assessment of its position:

1. Whether the authority has recently undertaken an accurate assessment of the legitimate, current and future costs faced by homecare providers, and whether the authority operates a fee negotiation arrangement that recognises these costs in full.
2. Whether the authority has breached existing clauses in contracts, particularly in relation to inflationary up-lifts; or has exercised unilateral rights to vary or hold contract prices at existing levels.
3. Whether the authority has engaged in reassessment of homecare packages that have resulted in a general reduction in visit times; or has adopted a per-minute billing system which has reduced providers’ income; without a comparable reduction in providers’ operating costs.
4. Whether the authority’s contracting arrangements have added additional costs for providers, which have not been reflected by an increase in the contract price.
5. Whether service users receiving direct payments can realistically afford to buy regulated care services, if they choose to, that will meet their assessed needs.
6. Whether contract terms and prices could be found by the courts to have created a reduction in the quality of service provision, which may put citizens who use care services at risk.

We would comment that we consider it regrettable we have had to raise the matter formally with councils, on behalf of providers, as we would far rather providers and commissioners were able to work together in a spirit of co-operation and mutual understanding.

However, we believe the ability of providers to deliver safe, dignified and sustainable services to people in their own homes is under extreme pressure by the cost-cutting actions of many councils and it is in the public interest to reverse the trends that threaten the stability of the homecare sector - without recourse to the courts.

We encourage members to share their views, and keep us informed of issues that concern you locally, so please email UKHCA’s Policy and Campaigns Team at policy@ukhca.co.uk.

Kind regards
Colin Angel
UKHCA Policy and Campaigns Director

Extract from the Guardian

ADASS President Peter Hay has made an unprecedented offer to private care home owners to join him and other directors of adult social services in talks about fee levels paid by local councils.

In the middle of a continuing series of judicial reviews concerning fee levels paid for older and vulnerable adults in residential care, and at the end of a gruelling transfer of some 750 Southern Cross homes to other providers, Mr Hay asked the home owners at their annual conference*:

• Can we agree on some simple guidelines for a common approach to fees – or shall we pull apart when, really, we have a greater, common cause in the care of your residents/our citizens?
• Shouldn’t we consider mediation before we rush to judicial reviews and having to spend money on legal actions that neither of us has?
• Shouldn’t we do this at a speed which allows us to show the quality – the very high quality – of our business to the people that matter, rather than letting others talk that business down?

In his keynote address, Mr Hay extended this olive branch in a time which he described as `chillingly austere’: when events at Southern Cross and Castlebeck have vividly illuminated what can happen to vulnerable people “when social care goes missing”, and when social care budgets for 2012/14 (years 2 and 3 of the Comprehensive Spending Review) could well be cut by more than the £1 billion they have been cut this year.

This at a time when

• The gap between the needs of older and vulnerable people, and the resources available to meet those needs, is growing ever wider. "There are no gap-deniers," he said: "no flat-earthers around – people who don’t think this established and growing gap is emerging, however much we might disagree on the size of the gap."
• Unintentionally, judicial reviews are hardening arteries around the use of eligibility criteria to allocate funds, when those criteria are the only means by which resources can be controlled within the system.
• The barriers to social and health care integration are strengthening, even though integration is a known mechanism through which additional resources can be controlled within the care system.

Mr Hay ended his speech by emphasising again the vision for social care that ADASS is bringing into the 21^st century: a vision for a "single, simple and personalised social care system which is understandable at the point of crisis, frees people from fears about its affordability, and offers peace of mind though dignity and safety for individuals." He ended: "It’s not just a story about older and vulnerable people. It’s our story too!"

We have been notified by the CQC regarding bogus visits to wards/homes, one in Surrey and another in Hampshire. Individuals have gained access to the service requesting to see personal information of staff and managed to leave with it.  They claim to be from the Care Quality Agency not the CQC and have fake ID.
 
 After liaising with the CQC today they have agreed that if there are any concerns that you call them before agreeing to let the visit commence.  
 
Also they informed us that they had a call that a women phoned a home asking for the managers personal identification including their qualifications

GRANT BID FOR THE PROVISION OF ADVOCACY SERVICES

 

Surrey County Council (SCC) invites expressions of interest from suitably experienced organisations for the provision of Advocacy services.

 

SCC requires one independent advocacy provider to deliver a range of advocacy services Surrey-wide, to ensure access to appropriate advocacy services for people with a learning disability, a physical, sensory or cognitive impairment, primary mental health needs and older people.  

 

It is expected that the service will be in place by 1^st April 2012 and will be for a period of three years with an option to extend for one further year at the sole discretion of the Council and subject to satisfactory performance.

 

Whilst every effort has been made to consider the full scope of the requirement the Council does not guarantee the volume of the services required resulting from this grant bid.

Applicants will be required to apply via our e-sourcing portal, which can be accessed at www.surrey.bravosolution.co.uk. To register an expression of interest and take part in the grant bid you will need to be registered on the portal. Please note that you will not be able to access the Advocacy Grant Bidding Documents until Friday 7^th October 2011. Grant bids must be submitted via the portal by no later than 17^th November 2011.

 

A bidders morning will be held on Tuesday 11^th October 2011 at the offices of Surrey Care Association Limited, Suite H4, Leatherhead Enterprise Centre, Randalls Road, Leatherhead, Surrey KT22 7RY (Tel: 01372-825116). The event is for organisations wishing to find out more about the advocacy services and grant bidding process. The session will start at 10:00 and is likely to last for approximately two hours.  Please note that this session is not compulsory for organisations that wish to submit a grant application. Further details can be found on the Bravosolution portal. Please note the Bravosolution Helpdesk Number 0800 368 4850

 

SCC undertakes to use reasonable endeavours to hold confidential any information provided in any proposal submitted, subject to its obligations under law, including the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

 

If you have any queries with regards to the above then please contact by email norah.lewis@surreycc.gov.uk or Robert.kitt@surreycc.gov.uk

Many domiciliary care providers attended our Tender event on 17^th August where we heard from SCC and NHS Surrey about the forthcoming home care tender. The slides are available in the Provider section under Dom Care. Important dates are included. However there will be a further update at our SCA Network meeting on Thursday 8^th Sept (1.30) – check out What’s On for agenda and location. Some providers had not received notification about the event and when we checked many had changed email addresses. If you have not been receiving communications from SCA then it is important to check we have your correct information. Please let Jenni.Turner@surreycare.org.uk know of any changes.

The seven things that providers must report to CQC

Following the Castlebeck investigations attention has been drawn to the failure of reporting incidents by the organisation. It may be worth checking that your reporting procedures are in line with the requirements. Community Care have published a list of the events that require reporting.

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2011/08/10/117279/The-seven-things-that-providers-must-report-to-CQC.htm

Our Business Administrator, Richard Monnery is leaving us on 26^th August to relocate to Huddersfield.  He has been a big asset to Surrey Care Association and we will all miss him .

We are in the process of recruiting replacements (yes it will take two people!) and will post details as soon as possible.

Home Visiting Basic Foot Care for Disabled People Across Surrey

Surrey Disabled People’s Partnership (SDPP) are pleased to announce that our existing foot care service has been extended and is now available to disabled adults across Surrey. 

What does the foot care service provide?

We provide a great value home visiting foot care service for disabled adults.  After an initial assessment, our fully trained Foot Care Worker will provide;

Toe nail cutting

Removal of hard skin

Foot care advice and, if required, referral to the podiatry service or GP

Our Foot Care Worker can also give information about a wide range of services and groups in the community

How much will the basic foot care service cost?

First Appointment: £30 (including a foot care kit which you keep)

On-going appointments: £12 per visit

We are able to provide a low cost scheme as SDPP is a not for profit organisation and has the support of an £8,000 grant from Surrey County Council.

For more information;

Telephone/Text: 01483 750973

Email: home@sdpp.org.uk

Visit our website: www.sdpp.org.uk

4 Key Questions

1. What is HealthWatch?

HealthWatch is the new initiative set out by the government to tackle inequalities within the NHS. They will provide patients and public with a voice to air their views, suggestions and concerns to governing and commissioning bodies.

2. What is the difference between HealthWatch and LINk’s

HealthWatch is an expansion of LINk’s (now being described as LINks+) which will become Local HealthWatch. Local HealthWatch will just about have all the powers that LINk’s have but will also include:

• New funding and functions to provide a complaints advocacy service. As well as supporting individuals exercising their choice, in particular people that lack the means or capacity to make choices.
• Be able to report concerns about quality of health to HealthWatch England, independent of the local authority, with the basis that HealthWatch England can recommend the Care Quality Commission take action.
• A Local HealthWatch member will sit on the Health and Wellbeing boards (which are set up within each local authority area).

3. What does it mean to me?

Existing volunteers, members of the public, will still have the same input that they have been able to have with LINk, but they will in future go to HealthWatch for complaints and support in exercising their choice of health and social care.

4. Why Change?

The government has recognised through public involvement with LINk’s how much impact they have had and wish to give the patients and public, a bigger responsibility in choosing what services are commissioned and how they should receive their health and social care.

 

LINks and HealthWatch advisory bodies take shape:

www.pals.nhs.uk

Processes are underway to implement the government’s plans to establish HealthWatch England as a sub-committee of the Care Quality Commission (CQC). In parallel with this, work is under way to ‘evolve’ LINks into local HealthWatch bodies which will have the power to report local concerns to the national body for possible

investigation. The 3 key differences between the current LINk arrangements and

the HealthWatch proposals are:

• shift from participation to influencing the outcome of health and social care services;
• local voice to national influence;  new functions adding individual to the collective.

Improved bulk upload tool launched for National Minimum Data Set for Social Care

News release 21 July 2011

After consultation with employers, Skills for Care has launched an improved bulk upload tool to make it easier for large employers to add large amounts of their data to the National Minimum Data Set for Social Care (NMDS-SC).

The improvements to the Bulk Uploading Data Items (BUDI) facility includes the introduction of a Unique Worker ID which means the system won’t automatically replace all worker records when an upload takes place.

A status column has also been added to set each record within an organisation to reflect whether it is an update, a new record, a deletion, a change and if any particular record had not been checked.

The updates now allow the qualification code and the year into the same cell, which can be repeated in separate cells for each qualification achieved by that particular worker. 

The old version of the Bulk Upload tool will continue to be accepted for six months to ensure users have time to change any systems or processes they may have in place. 

All guidance documents have been updated and you can find these by going to the resources section on the NMDS-SC website.

If users have any questions regarding BUDI please contact the NMDS-SC Helpdesk on 0845 873 0129, which is open Monday to Friday 8:30am – 5:30pm

 

Evaluating the impact of the 2005 OFT study into care homes for older people - now Published.

A report which gives a fascinating insight to market changes and the impact of the Office of Fair Trading recomendations. Surrey providers were involved in the 2005 work.

If you would like a copy of the report contact Alan Willmott (pending posting on web site)