Meeting documents

To be presented by Dr T Burch, Public Health Consultant.

Dr T Burch, Public Health Consultant, Buckinghamshire County Council, referred to the appendix in the agenda pack which provided more detail and stated that it had not been possible to rate some of the indicators as red, amber or green (RAG).   Dr Burch highlighted the red or amber indicators and highlighted the opportunities to further improve Buckinghamshire’s health and wellbeing.    The indicators were solely for the use of the Health and  Wellbeing Board:

·         Indicator 51 - Children who were the subject of a child protection plan (per 10,000) – unable to be RAG rated.

·         Indicator 56 - Adults with learning disability who lived in stable and appropriate accommodation – Red.

·         Indicator 58 -Total delayed transfers of care – this was an old indicator and had been proposed to be removed in future as no longer relevant.

·         Indicator 59 - Proportion of older people (65 and over) still living at home 91 days after discharge from hospital (%) – unable to be RAG rated.

·         Indicator 60 - Proportion of people who used services who said they made them feel safe and secure (%) – unable to be RAG rated.

The following key points were raised by members of the Board:

• The Chairman stated that the topic was broad and raised concern that the data was historic; published in 2015 in some cases, and could result in an incorrect decision being made.  Dr Burch confirmed that the most recent data had been used.
• Indicator 51 - Children who were the subject of a child protection plan (per 10,000).  There were 645 children with a child protection plan in September 2018 but the number had now decreased to 570 which was still considered high and work was being undertaken to understand the large number.
• Indicator 50 - Looked after children (per 10,000).  Mr W Whyte, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services, stated that more up to date data was available for 2016/17.  Ms Burch confirmed she had the data but was unable to compare it to Public Health’s (Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accounting) CIPFA peers.
• Indicator 56 - Adults with learning disability who lived in stable and appropriate accommodation (%) – RED (worse).  The Chairman expressed concern that there was insufficient accommodation available for people with learning disabilities.  It was noted that the buildings required a large amount of modification and that the Board should monitor the indicator.  Ms G Quinton, Executive Director, Communities, Health and Adult Social Care (CHASC) stated that a specialist group, involving colleagues from the district councils, had been set up to address the problem.  It was also noted that the CAMHS team were providing extra support to adults with learning disabilities.
• Indicator 60 - Proportion of people who used services who said they made them feel safe and secure (%).  A member of the Board queried the figure of 78.8%, as it implied a 100% return, and asked how the people who did not, or could not, respond to the survey were assessed.   Dr Burch agreed to request clarification from the CHASC Business Intelligence team.

ACTION:  Dr Burch

• Indicator 50 - Looked After Children and Indicator 51 - Children who were the subject of a child protection plan.  A member of the Board queried whether the Looked After Children came under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989.  Mr T Vouyioukas, Executive Director, Children’s Services, confirmed that the Looked After Children were a combination of those in accommodation under Section 20 with the agreement of their family and those under a care order by the local authority.  The children under a child protection order came under a different category. 
• It was noted that the rate of domestic violence was lower and queried whether this was due to under-reporting.  Dr O’Grady confirmed that the reported levels were rising and that there was now a Domestic Violence Strategy.  The statistics were provided, using benchmarks, to prompt questions rather than provide answers.

In summary, the Board were concerned over the timeliness of the data.

RESOLVED:  The Board NOTED the report.