|
|
 |
|
|
|
The following are from SBC website and are in the public domain from 14/12/2007.
Cabinet Agenda
Date: Thursday, 20th December, 2007
Time: 04.30 p.m.
Place: Lecture Hall, Stockton Central Library, The Square, Stockton on Tees
Contact: Sarah Johnson
01642 526189
s.johnson@stockton.gov.uk
|
Item
|
Description
|
|
Public
|
|
1
|
Apologies for absence
|
|
2
|
Declarations of Interest
|
|
3
|
Minutes of the meetings held on 25th October 2007 and 22nd November 2007 - for signature
|
|
4
|
Review of Parkview Residential Care Home
|
|
|
CABINET ITEM COVERING SHEET PROFORMA
AGENDA ITEM
REPORT TO CABINET
20 DECEMBER 2007
REPORT OF CORPORATE MANAGEMENT TEAM
CABINET DECISION
Lead Cabinet Member – Councillor Ann McCoy
REVIEW OF PARKVIEW RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME
1.Summary
This report sets out the proposal to commence a consultation exercise on the future service provision of Parkview Residential Care Home in Thornaby, given National Guidance and Stockton Borough Council’s (SBC) local policy.
2.Recommendations
Approve a period of consultation about the future service provision at Parkview, with service users, carers, staff and other relevant stakeholders and consider feedback from the consultation and the subsequent recommendations at the cabinet meeting in March 2008.
3.Reasons for Recommendations
•To ensure that residential care services continue to meet the needs of older people across Stockton Borough and that they are fit for purpose now and in the future.
•To contribute to the achievement of the Council’s Strategy for Older People.
•To ensure the effective use of resources and improve value for money.
4.Members’ Interest
Members (including co-opted Members with voting rights) should consider whether they have a personal interest in the item as defined in the Council’s code of conduct (paragraph 8) and, if so, declare the existence and nature of that interest in accordance with paragraph 9 of the code.
Where a Member regards him/herself as having a personal interest in the item, he/she must then consider whether that interest is one which a member of the public, with knowledge of the relevant facts, would reasonably regard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice the Member’s judgement of the public interest (paragraphs 10 and 11 of the code of conduct).
A Member with a prejudicial interest in any matter must withdraw from the room where the meeting considering the business is being held -
•in a case where the Member is attending a meeting (including a meeting of a select committee) but only for the purpose of making representations, answering questions or giving evidence, provided the public are also allowed to attend the meeting for the same purpose whether under statutory right or otherwise, immediately after making representations, answering questions or giving evidence as the case may be;
•in any other case, whenever it becomes apparent that the business is being considered at the meeting;
and must not exercise executive functions in relation to the matter and not seek improperly to influence the decision about the matter (paragraph 12 of the Code).
Further to the above, it should be noted that any Member attending a meeting of Cabinet, Select Committee etc; whether or not they are a Member of the Cabinet or Select Committee concerned, must declare any personal interest which they have in the business being considered at the meeting (unless the interest arises solely from the Member’s membership of, or position of control or management on any other body to which the Member was appointed or nominated by the Council, or on any other body exercising functions of a public nature, when the interest only needs to be declared if and when the Member speaks on the matter), and if their interest is prejudicial, they must also leave the meeting room, subject to and in accordance with the provisions referred to above.
AGENDA ITEM
REPORT TO CABINET
20 DECEMBER 2007
REPORT OF CORPORATE MANAGEMENT TEAM
CABINET DECISION
REVIEW OF PARKVIEW RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME
SUMMARY
This report sets out the proposal to commence a consultation exercise on the future service provision of Parkview Residential Care Home in Thornaby, given National Guidance and SBC’s local policy.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve a period of consultation about the future service provision at Parkview, with service users, carers, staff and other relevant stakeholders and consider feedback from the consultation and the subsequent recommendations at the cabinet meeting in March 2008.
DETAIL
NATIONAL POLICY AND GUIDANCE
1.Services for adults and older people are developed and delivered within a national framework of policy and guidance. This includes:
•National Service Framework (NSF) for Older People
•Our Health Our Care Our Say
•Government funding for Extra Care Housing
•NSF Long Term Conditions
2.The policy direction for all of the above documents highlight that for older people’s care the emphasis is to extend choice and offer opportunities, where possible, for people to remain in their own home rather than enter permanent residential care. This has led to the development of new service models which aim to enable older people to remain in their own homes for as long as possible. These include specialist domiciliary care, respite care, extra care housing schemes and work on supported tenancies under the Supporting People programme. In addition, the focus on long term conditions aims to ensure care is provided closer to home with the necessary health and social care support.
LOCAL POLICY
3.In Stockton we reviewed our services for older people in 1999 under “Homes for Life” - a strategy to promote the independence of older people in Stockton on Tees which set out our vision for developing a range of community based resources to maintain people in their own homes as an alternative to residential care. See Appendix 1 (Cabinet report 2000).
4.Within this policy a review of residential provision was undertaken and resulted in four Council run residential homes being closed throughout 2000 and 2002. A range of alternative services to enable people to live in their own homes and communities for as long as possible, have since been developed e.g. intermediate home care and telecare. Extra care housing has also been established for people who require care but want to maintain their independence.
5.Two Stockton Borough Council (SBC) establishments remained, Rosedale House and Parkview. Rosedale House has been reviewed and subsequently developed respite care, rehabilitation and recuperation services in partnership with the North Tees Primary Care Trust (PCT). It no longer offers admissions to permanent 24hour residential care. Further developments in respect of intermediate care beds are subject to discussion with NHS colleagues.
CURRENT PROVISION ACROSS THE BOROUGH
6.Where individual older people do require permanent residential or nursing care, the development of the local market has meant the expansion of independent sector provision in terms both of overall supply and of the range of provision available (for example in specialist residential care for the elderly mentally infirm and in nursing care for older people with complex needs). New providers continue to open establishments offering residential and / or nursing beds although there has been in excess of 100 vacancies across Stockton for over 12 months
7.Stockton has an ageing population and by 2025 the number of people aged 65+ is projected to increase by 46% compared to 2008. The greatest increase will be in the 85+ age group where the numbers are projected to increase over the same time period by 82% (source: SBC Strategy for Older People (August 2007)/ www.statistics.gov.uk <http://www.statistics.gov.uk>)
8.This will result in increased demand for all forms of care, particularly services in the community and nursing care rather than residential care. The greatest pressure will be on nursing care as people with less complex needs should be supported to live at home for as long as possible.
9.Provision in Thornaby has increased significantly since 2002, with Mandale House and Ingleby changing registration to all residential places, plus Parkside Court (extra care). This has resulted in 107 additional residential beds and 50 units of extra care. In addition a range of new services are now available to help support people in the community, eg
•Domiciliary care provision
•Development of Direct Payments and Individual Budgets
•Expansion of Extra Care
•Respite services
•Supporting People services providing housing based support
•Community Alarm services
•Telecare developments
•Community services such as rapid response and intermediate care
PARKVIEW
10.Parkview is the remaining Council owned Older Peoples establishment that offers admissions into permanent 24hour residential care. It currently provides a total of 32 places set out across 3 independent units: -
•Littleboy First floor (11 beds). This unit provides short break respite services to older people and their carers. Average stay is two weeks. Clients living in the Thornaby area are also offered discharge support on this unit.
•Westbury First floor (10 beds). This unit provides permanent care to elderly frail clients.
•Bonlea Ground floor (11 beds). This unit provides permanent care to older people who have mental health problems.
11.The building is over 50 years old and requires significant investment to bring it up to modern standards.
12.National minimum standards for permanent residential care establishments specify minimum room sizes and private facilities to promote and ensure peoples dignity. To meet these modern standards at Parkview significant investment is required. Significant capital funding would be required to bring Parkview up to these modern standards and one likely impact would be to reduce the capacity in the current building by a projected one-third of current beds. This would have a significant impact on the unit costs of the service unless the overall size of the building were increased to maintain or increase the bed numbers.
13.The quality of the care provided at Parkview was assessed as excellent in the most recent Commission for Social Care Inspection report. Demand for the services provided by each of these units has proved to be below planned levels and there have been no new permanent admissions to Parkview since 21 April 2007 due to the prolonged failure to attract new permanent residents and the subsequent need to review the service provision.
14.Due to the low occupancy, one of the units was developed as a respite facility in an attempt to promote Parkview and increase the overall occupancy. In the first 6 months of 2007/08, average usage in terms of the percentage of maximum bed days taken up for each unit was 78% for residential care (15 residents) and 34.3% for respite care services
FINANCIAL ISSUES
15.The unit cost of the service at Parkview is approximately £970 per resident per week based on current levels of occupancy. Projected unit costs according to occupancy are set out in the table below.
Projected Unit Costs as varying occupancy levels :
Occupancy Level (%)Unit cost per Resident per Week (£)
Unit Cost Resident Per Week including impact of capital expenditure (£)
90%645729
85%683771
80%726820
70%830937
60%9681093
50%11611311
16.Placements in the independent sector range in cost from £353 to £428 per week, depending on the grading of the home and type of care (October 2007 figures). Any potential impact of the new Single Status Scheme is not reflected in these figures.
17.The building requires investment to ensure that it remains suitable for purpose in the short term. The works required include lift/boiler replacement and Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) works. These, together with annual maintenance costs, are projected to cost £412,000 within the next five years. In the longer term, the Asset Management Plan projects that substantial additional investment would be required over the following ten years. Current estimates to bring the home up to modern standards would require capital funding of approximately £1.2m, which increases to approximately £2m with maintenance costs over a 15-year projection. More details are attached at Appendix 2.
OPTIONS
18.There are two options :
•Identify resources to upgrade facilities at Parkview.
•SBC closes the home and resettles the current residents into alternative homes in the locality and reinvest in preventative community based services
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Set out in Section 5 – Financial Issues above.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONSN/A
RISK ASSESSMENTN/A
COMMUNITY STRATEGY IMPLICATIONS
The ‘Homes for Life’ Strategy reflects the vision of improved quality of life and enhanced wellbeing for local people.
EQUALITIES IMPACT ASSESSMENTN/A
CONSULTATION INCLUDING WARD/COUNCILLORS
Consultation meetings will be arranged with residents and carers followed by residential care staff. The consultation will also include wider staff teams and interested stakeholders including Local Councillors, Trade Unions and Local Residents Associations. Any comments and written contributions to date as well as throughout the agreed period will be included. The consultation period will be 28 days.
Name of Contact Officer :Sean McEneany
Post Title:Head of Adult Operational Services
Telephone No:01642 527045
Email Address:sean.mceneany@stockton.gov.uk
Background Papers
‘Homes for Life’ – Implementing our Strategy to promote the independence of older people in Stockton-on-Tees as reported to Cabinet 17 February 2000.
Ward(s) and Ward Councillors:
A briefing of Local Councillors has been undertaken.
Property
|
|
APPENDIX 1
AGENDA NO.
DELEGATED
REPORT TO CABINET
17th February 2000
REPORT OF CORPORATE MANAGEMENT TEAM
HOMES FOR LIFE - IMPLEMENTING OUR STRATEGY TO PROMOTE THE INDEPENDENCE OF OLDER PEOPLE IN STOCKTON ON TEES
SUMMARY
This report proposes a framework and action plan to implement a vision for older people in Stockton to promote their independence and quality of life.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Cabinet Members are asked :
a)Support, in principle, the strategy outlined in this report.
b)Agree the development of a Project Plan.
c)Make a decision as to closures/developments informed by a wide consultation process.
d)Ensure that existing future service users, their carers and staff are enabled to contribute their views.
DETAIL
1.In August 1999 the Social Services Committee and Housing Committee agreed a strategy to promote independence for older people in Stockton by developing a range of community based resources to maintain people in their own homes as an alternative to residential care.
2.That report is attached as Appendix 1, and highlights that in Stockton we know:
•The number of older people is increasing;
•People will live longer and will require increased support.
•People value their independence for as long as possible.
3.We also know that across the Borough there is over-provision of sheltered housing, residential and nursing home beds, both in the public and independent sector. The Local Authority currently has six elderly people’s homes and nine sheltered housing blocks which are difficult to let or of a poor standard. Substantial capital involvement is required to ensure they meet rising national standards and public expectations, and there remains a real cost differential with the independent sector.
4.A range of options have been considered over the last two years leading to the development of our agreed strategy. We do not want to take a short-term, financially led approach of service reduction, closures or transfers. Our aim is to provide a best value, flexible infrastructure for older people well into the new century. This will be achieved by releasing resources tied up in institutional care, attracting new resources and developing extended care schemes to rationalise sheltered housing. This will be an incremental process requiring the detailing of short, medium and long-term objectives.
5.A Multi Agency Implementation Steering Group has been established and has received information from a variety of other authorities, specialist consultants and providers. A Vision Statement has been produced, proposing a framework for the agreed strategy, and this attached as Appendix 2. A Project Manager has been seconded to lead the initiative and develop a Project Team, reporting to the Implementation Steering Group. This has been partly funded by the agreed corporate revenue bid.
IMPLEMEMENTING THE VISION
6.We now need to set out a clear action plan and timetable to implement this vision. This will require a great deal of detailed work, consultation and partnership working.
7.The impact of this initiative on those who currently use our services, our staff, and those who may use services in the future is significant, and we want to plan very carefully to minimise disruption and concerns, whilst managing the changes positively and transparently. The financial position for the authority does provide a time imperative, we cannot sustain the status quo indefinitely, so we are aiming to balance this within an inclusive, managed timetable.
8.The first step is to begin specific consultation on the closure of two elderly people homes in 2000. It is proposed that the first one would be Redhill House at Roseworth for the following reasons:
•The building requires substantial investment to meet national and local standards, and raised public expectations.
•Despite a reduction to 35 permanent beds, there are still 3 vacancies currently, with no waiting list for admission.
•There is the potential for a range of alternative use for the building.
•There is another local authority residential home in the area.
•There is potentially a viable alternative independent residential establishment very close, which could take current residents.
•It has the smallest staffing group and redeployment viable within existing service.
9.The second home proposed is Stirling House, Thornaby, for the following reasons:
•The building requires substantial investment to meet national and local standards, and raised public expectations.
•Despite a reduction from 46 to 35 permanent beds there are still 4 vacancies with no waiting list for admission.
•It has a relatively small staffing group.
•The establishment has been under-utilised for many years and has an unpopular image with elderly people.
•It has a strategic geographical position surrounded by a large car park with the potential for future developments.
•There is another local authority residential home in the area.
This will create resources to develop the first locally based resource centre, offering an increased range of community based multi-agency services.
10.Subject to Cabinet agreement we will work very closely with residents, their families, staff, Unions and our partners to offer a positive alternative for all individuals who will be directly affected by those changes. Whilst continuing to ensure the provision of direct care and also employment for current staff, work needs to be undertaken to develop new services and new partnerships.
CONCLUSIONS
11.We are at the beginning of a long, but exciting process to fundamentally change how we can support citizens in Stockton as they move towards old age.
The proposed framework and timetable requires extensive consultation and at times hard decisions, but it will deliver a modern, flexible service to meet the requirements and the challenges ahead.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
As detailed in Appendix 3.
POLICY CONTENT
The vision to promote independence for older people in Stockton reflects the Community Plan policy platforms to improve health, promote the safety and well-being of the community and improve opportunities for life long learning.
Ann Baxter
Director of Social Services
Contact Officer Ann Baxter
Telephone No. 393300 and Email Address Ann.Baxter@Stockton-bc.gov.uk
Environmental ImplicationsNone
Community Safety ImplicationsNone
Background PapersSocial Services Committee 2nd August 1999
A Homes for Life Strategy
Education Related Item?No
Ward(s) and Ward Councillors: All
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BUILDING RELATED COSTS
|
|
|
APPENDIX 2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PARKVIEW RESIDENTIAL HOME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CURRENT BUILDING
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance Works required over next 5 years
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
£
|
|
|
|
Replacement of Passenger Lift
|
|
75,000
|
|
|
|
Replacement of Boiler
|
|
50,000
|
|
|
|
DDA Related Work
|
|
35,000
|
|
|
|
Maintenance Costs required over 5 Years (per Asset Management System) inc Alarm and Luminaries
|
252,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
412,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maintenance Costs (Per Asset Management System)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Over 5 Years (Included in A above)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Over 10 Years
|
|
556,000
|
|
|
|
Over Years 15 Years
|
|
678,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated Costs of Upgrade to Modern Care Standards
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Works including:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alterations to internal walls to create larger rooms
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Ensuite facilities in each room
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Electrical Rewiring for new room arrangements
|
}
|
1,213,000
|
|
|
|
Upgrade of Heating
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Ventilation to new room arrangements
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Finishings
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
Extension to reprovide beds
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Building Costs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Including Maintenance over 5 Years
|
|
1,625,000
|
|
|
|
Including Maintenance over 10 Years
|
|
1,908,000
|
|
|
|
Including Maintenance over 15 Years
|
|
1,955,000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Report from Cabinet meeting 20/12/2007.
The meeting was held in the Lecture Room at Stockton Library. It was very well attended by campaigners for the home.
It began with the Chairmans opening remarks about the home and expanations as to how the discussions would go.
Ann Baxter was asked to present the report to cabinet and outlined what SBC officers propose to happen,-- CONSULTATION AND REVIEW.
The Chair then stated that he would recommend it also be reviewed by the Adult Services and Health Select Committee.
Speakers were allowed from the floor and some very good reasoned points were made.
Well done to Peter Brennan (VPRA Sec) Councillor Steve Walmsley (TIA) Councillor Eileen Craggs (TIA) and Councillor Allison Trainer (TIA).And well done to the members of Parkview staff who tried to explain they care for the residents as they were their own families.
No cabinet member commented on the report and it was accepted that it be accepted and consultation be held with staff, residents and their families, councillors, residents group and interested parties.
The VPRA petition was handed over to Democratic Services and names given to be contacted in the new year about future meetings.
THE FIGHT STARTS NOW
|
|
|
