Jon
Tomlinson, Senior Head of Service for Commissioning, Brokerage and
Quality Assurance, introduced the report for this item which
provided an annual update on the recent quality assurance work and
the current challenges faced including upward pressure on costs,
recruitment and retention, and increased acuity and demand. Regular
meetings were held with both domiciliary care and residential care
providers to discuss key issues and a new uplift process had been
introduced to reflect the challenges faced by providers. He
explained that the Council and the Care Quality Commission (CQC)
worked closely with providers to develop action plans when issues
had been identified through the quality assurance process. In
Haringey, the majority of providers had been assessed as being in
the ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ categories and
the general approach of the Council was not to commission providers
that were assessed as requiring improvement, although there were
cases where there were already residents using those
services.
David
Harris, Operations Manager for Islington, Camden & Haringey at
the CQC, explained that his role covered a range of health and
social care services and that, from January, there would be an
allocated CQC inspector for adult social care in Haringey. With
regard to the report, he concurred that there was a lot of pressure
in the system at present and noted that there were particular
concerns about the demand on ambulance services coming into the
Whittington and North Middlesex hospitals.
Jon Tomlinson and David Harris then responded to
questions from the Panel:
- Cllr
Iyngkaran referred to Provider G in
Table 1 in the report which was listed as having two open
Safeguarding Adult Reviews and 30+ safeguarding concerns. He asked
why the Council had lifted its suspension on further placements
while the Integrated Care Board (ICB) had continued with a
suspension. Jon Tomlinson responded that the Council had developed
an action plan with the provider and that all of the required
quality assurance actions had been complied with. The Council had a
block contract with the provider and it was deemed appropriate to
lift the suspension. Vicky Murphy, Service Director for Adult
Social Services, added that the provider had 106 beds, 61 of which
were for residential and lower needs nursing. She explained that
there were also some intermediate care beds and that the ICB would
also spot purchase beds for Continuing Healthcare (CHC). The
requirements on CHC had been around intensive nursing support and
changes were ongoing in this area. Further information was expected
to be available on this in the coming weeks which could be provided
to the Panel. (ACTION)
- Referring to
Table 5 on page 8 of the supplementary agenda pack, Cllr
Iyngkaran asked why nine of the Out of
Borough placements were at uninspected premises. David Harris
explained that not every adult social care service was inspected by
the CQC (e.g. supported living) and that some services may have
registered but not been inspected yet. When registering, they would
have to go through a rigorous process including many of the same
details as an inspection so they would be a perfectly usable and
safe service. Similarly, a change of ownership could also lead to
situation where a service had not yet been inspected. Jon Tomlinson
added that the Council would also liaise closely with the host
authority and would not place anyone with a provider that the host
authority had highlighted issues about.
- Referring to
page 7 of the supplementary agenda pack, Cllr Connor noted that
there were 13 locations in the Borough that Haringey Council did
not currently commission and asked whether there was any oversight
of self-funding Haringey residents who might be using these
services. Jon Tomlinson explained that their quality assurance
approach was based on risk due to their current capacity, although
they were expecting to be able to expand the quality assurance team
early next year. This meant that the quality assurance activities
would typically be prompted if issues were raised with the Council
or if information was received from other sources such as the CQC,
other local authorities or residents/families. Vicky Murphy added
that any service providing direct care would also be CQC-regulated,
as opposed to services such as supported living services which were
not CQC-regulated. The non-commissioned services would be a mix of
these two categories. Cllr Connor suggested that clarification on
this would be useful in future reports on this topic.
(ACTION)
- Asked by
Helena Kania how many of the 180 Out of
Borough placements were outside of the North Central London (NCL)
area and how these were monitored in terms of safeguarding, Jon
Tomlinson said that typically around one-third of the placements
would be outside of NCL. He explained that there would be an annual
review for each individual carried out by a social worker and
reiterated the close partnership working with the host authorities
as previously mentioned. Vicky Murphy added that the host authority
would have a statutory responsibility for safeguarding issues. Dr
Adi Cooper, Independent Chair of the
Haringey Safeguarding Adults Board (HSAB), commented that, when
serious safeguarding issues arose, the HSAB would seek assurances
from partners that immediate action was being taken to review
similar cases. She added that a complicating factor was that
placements were sometimes made through agencies so there needed to
be careful monitoring. There was an added layer of assurance
through the HSAB, in the ongoing monitoring reports and in the
regular commissioning reports it received from adult social care
and the ICB. David Harris commented that closed cultures could
often be a factor in serious safeguarding events and that planned
routine visits may not be sufficient to understand what was going
on and so more unscheduled visits were required.
- Asked by Cllr
Mason about the nine providers where risk had been identified and
whether others were on the risk borderline, Jon Tomlinson said
that, in addition to the nine providers highlighted in the report,
there were a similar number where there was a watching
brief.
- Asked by Cllr
Mason about reports from family members as a part of assessing
risk, Jon Tomlinson explained that the risk register was the main
tool used for ensuring an overview of this in conjunction with
other identified risk factors. He added that the quality assurance
team would always investigate and take action/involve partners
where necessary when family members raised concerns about care.
Cllr Mason requested that an anonymised version of the risk
register be provided to the Panel if possible or alternatively
information about how many safeguarding complaints had been raised.
Jon Tomlinson agreed to look at what information could be provided
on this. (ACTION)
- Asked by Cllr
Brennan about the background checks on placements with previously
unused providers, Jon Tomlinson said that the team would always do
background work with information gathered about CQC registration
and other kinds of data in order to have a good understanding of a
service before making a placement. He acknowledged that the market
was particularly challenging at present and so the brokerage team
was working to identify packages to meet the assessed needs of
residents.
- Referring to
paragraph 6.12 on page 8 of the report, Cllr Connor asked what
difference the Quality Assurance and Contract Monitoring Framework
was expected to make to residents. Jon Tomlinson explained that the
Framework had only just been launched but that it would help to
record and track quality assurance information from the beginning
of the process. It would also enable the monitoring of contracts in
a more organised and coordinated way. Haringey currently used quite
a large number of providers due to the equivalent of spot
purchasing but, by moving to more block contracts it would be
possible to bring the number of providers down which would be more
manageable in terms of quality assurance. The expected increase in
the size of the team would also enable more proactive engagement
with providers. Cllr Connor proposed that a further update be
provided on the Quality Assurance and Contract Monitoring Framework
at the quality assurance report to the Panel next year.
(ACTION)
- Referring to
an individual case that she was aware of, Cllr Connor asked whether
investigations into safeguarding complaints were closed after a
service user had died. Vicky Murphy confirmed that there was no
policy that would require this and that, depending on the nature of
the case, further action could be taken, for example as part of a
Safeguarding Adults Review or by contributing to a wider system
approach. She also indicated that she would be happy to provide a
response regarding the individual case outside of the meeting if
required. (ACTION)
- Referring to
cases in the report of providers that had not yet shown sufficient
improvement, Cllr Connor asked what reassurances could be provided
for families of residents who remained placed with these providers.
David Harris explained that there were different levels of CQC
enforcement which included a formal notice of improvements required
within a certain timescale which could be followed by requirements
for documentary proof of changes or a further inspection. Jon
Tomlinson added that an action plan would typically be agreed and
that the Council would work with the provider until those
improvements were attained. Quality assurance officers would make
regular visits during this time in order to help manage the risk
level. The social work team may also be involved if necessary to
provide additional support to the service user and their family.
However, if the provider did not appear to be making progress
within the agreed time period, then decommissioning could be
necessary. Vicky Murphy added that there was a lot of quality
assurance during the social care assessments and that there would
be close communication between the quality assurance team and the
social work team.