Meeting documents

Apologies for absence were received from Nadiya Ashraf, Andrew Clark, Elaine Jewell, Chris Reid and Bob Smith.

Stephen Archibald (Chief Executive, Carers Bucks) was in attendance as a substitute for Nadiya Ashraf.

Rita Lally, Strategic Director, Adults and Family Wellbeing, was on sick leave.

Trevor Boyd was currently Acting Strategic Director, Adults and Family Wellbeing.

Rachael Rothero was currently Acting Service Director for Commissioning and Service Improvement, Adults and Family Wellbeing.

Due to these changes, Rachael Rothero would be chairing the meeting.

The Minutes of the meeting held on 14 November 2011 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

Matters arising

Page 2 – the Supporting People Board had now been renamed as the ‘Prevention and Wellbeing Partnership Board.’ The focus of the Board would be on people not eligible for social care services.

The Supporting People governance structure had been disbanded. The membership list for the new Board was being put together, and the aim would be to have 50% of the membership from service users and carers.

The work programme for the new board would come to the Executive Partnership Board for approval as with the other partnership boards.

Page 4 – representatives from Oxford Health NHS Trust, The Ridgeway Partnership Trust and Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust to be invited to join the Board – Action: HW [Post meeting note – emails of invitation have been sent to all three organisations]

Page 5 – the terms of reference would be amended to reflect the code of conduct – Action: HW [Post meeting note - the Code of Conduct at Buckinghamshire County Council is being revised under the Localism Act, and this work has not yet been completed.]

Page 6 – Training for partnership board members – Rachael Rothero asked how members wished to approach this training. Ian Cormack said that training for services user / carer members would be part of the role of the User-led Organisation (ULO) after the ULO had finished the recruitment for the partnership boards.

It was noted that officers and professionals who attended the partnership boards should also have training to ensure that they had a thorough understanding of the needs of services users / carers.

Rachael Rothero said that she had a very small amount of funding which could be used for training, and asked that each partnership board consider their training needs and feed these back to form a proposal for the next meeting – Action: all partnership boards

Members asked that the training include information about the format of presentations and slides, as well as about accessibility and the equalities duty. Each partnership board had different issues, and the Executive Partnership Board needed to have a basic understanding of all these to work effectively.

Page 8 – Terms of Reference – partnership boards were now being formally re-constituted in line with the agreed terms of reference.

Partnership boards were also now using the new format for agendas, minutes and other documents. Alison Lewis had met with Democratic Services to discuss accessibility of documents and other than a few further tweaks, the documents were now in the correct format.

Written reports had been prepared by the lead commissioners for each partnership board.  The reports were in the agenda papers. The main points in each report are below, as well as discussions held about each report.

Assistive Technology Partnership Board (ATPB) – Adam Willison

The ATPB would focus on four areas in the next financial year, and was looking at how to make Assistive Technology equipment more available on the retail market.

A Conference was being held in March 2012, and the Assistive Technology business case was being prepared for agreement in May 2012.

The Assistive Technology assessment process used by social workers and occupational therapists was being looked at to try and make it part of the care management process.

A community awareness programme for Assistive Technology would be run by Carers Bucks in 2012/13.

Carers Partnership Board (CPB) – Stephen Archibald

A Carers Safeguarding Toolkit had been developed, including a questionnaire about what each organisation knew about safeguarding.

Ian Cormack had done great work in obtaining information from the Primary Care Trust regarding NHS Carers Breaks. Clare Blakeway-Phillips (Assistant Director, Partnership Development, NHS Buckinghamshire) had attended the CPB to speak about Carers Breaks and had tabled a draft business case. This had been endorsed and welcomed by the CPB.

The CPB had expressed great concern about the Domiciliary Care provider which had been found to be unsafe by the Care Quality Commission.

Rachael Rothero said that significant service failings had been found in a service provider in north Buckinghamshire. A decision had therefore been taken to reduce the level of service, which was now only being provided in Aylesbury town, and not further north in Buckinghamshire. The provider was being monitored very carefully, on a weekly basis, and complaints and safeguarding issues had significantly reduced.

A user / carer member noted that they had been involved in the tendering process for the provider, and said that they now felt very uncomfortable. The Council had also not kept them informed of the issues with the provider.

Rachael Rothero said that the issues with the provider had not been due to the choice of provider.

Members discussed this and said that users / carers involved in tendering processes would feel a sense of implied responsibility / accountability. It was agreed that training and processes were needed on this.

Members also said that users / carers involved in tendering should receive some sort of feedback about how the contract was running. Rachael Rothero said that user feedback was obtained once the contracts were in place, as part of the evaluation process.

Action: Marcia Smith, Service Manager for Performance, to be invited to the next meeting to present her ideas about involving users and carers in contract management and feedback. [Post meeting note – Marcia has been invited to the meeting in September 2012.]

Learning Disability Partnership Board (LDPB) – Ainsley Macdonnell

A Services and Activities Group had been introduced to work on specific topics. The group would be meeting every six  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Following the meeting of the Executive Partnership Board on 14 November 2011, partnership boards had been asked to provide a list of their priorities against the following outcomes:

Helping people to speak up and to be active citizens

Supporting carers

Day and employment opportunities

Housing and support

Improving health

Personalisation

The progress of the partnership boards in identifying their priorities was detailed in the report. Over the next two months the priorities for all the boards would be set, and these would be presented at the next meeting of the Executive Partnership Board.

It was noted that to set three priorities against each outcome was quite an undertaking for some boards. Rachael Rothero said that a maximum of three priorities, not a requirement for three, had been requested. Members asked that this be communicated to the boards.

Rachael Rothero said that the priorities should come from and be aligned with the strategies for each board, and should not be new priorities. The partnership boards would not expected to carry out all the work needed for the priorities, but would have a role of oversight and influence.

Bev Frost, Communications Officer, updated members.

Shadow Health and Wellbeing Board – draft Strategy

The Shadow Health and Wellbeing Board was a new partnership group that brought together Councillors, GPs and patient representatives. The purpose of this board was to work together to improve the health and wellbeing of people who live in Buckinghamshire. The board had developed a strategy and was looking for comments and views on whether it had got this right.

A Focus Group would be created to look at the Health & Wellbeing Strategy, and partnership boards were being asked to nominate one person to take part in this. Further information would be circulated about this – Action: Bev Frost [Post meeting note – due to insufficient interest, the focus group did not go ahead]

The Health & Wellbeing Strategy would be a very important document for deciding how priorities and budgets were set.

Members said the following:

·                 A meeting was being held on 5 March 2012 to discuss how to involve Learning Disability clients on Health and Wellbeing Boards.

·                 The connection between the Executive Partnership Board (EPB) and the Shadow Health and Wellbeing Board needed to be looked at, including how the EPB could feed into and influence the Board.

·                 The key document for the Shadow Health and Wellbeing Board was the Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, and there should be an agenda item on this for each partnership board – Action: HW [Post meeting note – this has been communicated to the support officers for each partnership board]

Partnership Board newsletter

A draft template for a partnership board newsletter was circulated. Bev Frost asked members what they would like to see in the newsletter.

Rachael Rothero said that the newsletter should contain an update from each partnership board, and should be circulated as widely as possible. The newsletter could also contain information about changes in policy. The audience for the newsletter would be users and carers who did not sit on the partnership boards. Each partnership board would have networks which could be used to distribute the newsletter.

Members also said the following:

·                 User / carer chairmen of the partnership boards needed a better understanding of what was going on across the Council

·                 If the newsletter contained too much information, people would not read it.

·                 The newsletter should not regurgitate information which had already been sent to the boards, but should report on cross-cutting issues such as transport.

·                 The newsletter should focus on what the Executive Partnership Board did to enhance the work of the other partnership boards.

·                 The newsletter could report on changes in services, such as the new supported living service.

Action: A proposal about the newsletter to be brought to the next meeting.

Partnership boards website

A webpage for the partnership boards would be live from 1 April 2012, and would contain agendas, minutes and other information from the boards.

It was suggested that the website should be independent and not linked to the Council or health websites. However unfortunately this would not be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Alison Lewis - Chairman of the ULO

Ian Cormack referred members to the draft expense policy for users and carers in the papers.

The draft policy had been written to ensure that service users and carers were not financially disadvantaged as a result of attending partnership board meetings. The Policy would be reviewed after six months.

Andrew Clark had commented that the draft expenses policy implied that only travel and subsistence and ‘sitting service’ costs could be reimbursed. For many disabled people, attending a meeting would incur other legitimate costs, such as replacement care beyond sitting, childcare, additional personal assistance or facilities, etc. The policy should include these items, and also specify approved or maximum rates which were in the upper quartile of the local average.

A member referred to Appendix 1 (page 38 of the papers) and the bullet point which read ‘Payments should be made according to consistent and transparent criteria that take into account the level of involvement, the type of work and the skills and expertise required.’

The member said that this bullet point needed to be changed as the payments should not be based on the level of skills and expertise.

Kurt Moxley noted that Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust had its own remuneration policy, and that the two policies needed to be aligned.

Alison Lewis, Chairman of the ULO

Alison Lewis reported to members as follows:

·                 The User-led Organisation (ULO) had been re-named as the Service User Carer Organisation (SUCO).

·                 Alison Lewis was Chairman of SUCO, and Ian Cormack was Vice-Chairman of SUCO.

·                 Branding for SUCO was being developed, as well as a website.

·                 A development worker had been employed (Debbie Game) who would be attending each partnership board in due course.

·                 The SUCO steering group was made up of service users. The Self-Directed Support working group would be kept as a wider working group.

·                 The task for SUCO was to increase service user and carer representation on the partnership boards. These members could not all be recruited at the same time, and it was important that the right people were recruited. Two adverts had been placed in local papers, and contact was being made with other media as well.

·                 Training needs for each user group were also being looked at.

·                 When a volunteer came forward, they would be contacted initially by Debbie Game and then again by either Alison Lewis or by Ian Cormack.

Ian Cormack said that SUCO would be prioritising service user / carer representation for the Mental Health Partnership Board and for the Carers Partnership Board. User / carer representation for the Learning Disability Partnership Board was mainly being handled by Talkback. 

At the next meeting a clear plan for engaging service users and carers would be presented.

Paul Greenhalgh, Performance Manager, Adults and Family Wellbeing

Paul Greenhalgh, Performance Manager, Adults and Family Wellbeing, told members the following:

·                 In May - June 2012 the Council would create its first Local Account, which would enable residents to judge how well the Council was performing in meeting priorities for adult social care in Buckinghamshire and in ensuring that value for money was being achieved.

·                 The Council wanted to involved users and carers in determining what the Local Account would look like. The aim was for the report to be clear and easy to read, in a format which was accessible.

·                 A working group had been put together and had met on 24 January 2012, and a questionnaire had been produced for members of the working group to take back to their organisations.

·                 Feedback was being obtained from the partnership boards, the Local Involvement Network, Older People’s Action Groups, Town / Parish Councils and user groups. The questionnaire had also been sent out with the Carers Bucks newsletter.

·                 There was also an online questionnaire: http://bucksconsultation.buckscc.gov.uk/bucksccp/kms/dmart.aspx?LoggingIn=tempVar&noIP=1&filter_Status=1

·                 The working group would meet again on 21 February 2012.

Steve Goldensmith asked how the priorities from the Local Account would fit with the partnership board priorities. Paul Greenhalgh said that the Local Account should fit with the Big ideas contained in the Commissioning Strategies, and would not contain new priorities.

A member said that the Local Account should express positive outcomes but also concerns and constraints. Other authorities had produced Local Accounts which varied widely in the amount of detail included.

A member asked if the Local Account would be submitted to the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Paul Greenhalgh said that any major concerns would be fed into National Healthwatch by Local Healthwatch. The CQC might be involved in a worst case scenario. Local indicators (e.g. waiting times) would be monitored at a local level.

Jane Taptiklis noted that if each Authority produced their Local Account in different formats, these could not be compared.

Rachael Rothero said that there was a new social care outcome framework (attached). Many of the outcomes interfaced with the new health outcomes framework.

Steve Goldensmith asked about the language in the Local Account, and if it would refer to outcomes. Paul Greenhalgh said that the language would be about priorities and delivery.

To be agreed

21 May 2012, 1:30pm, venue tbc

17 September 2012, 1:30pm, venue tbc

10 December 2012, 1:30pm, venue tbc