Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Social Care Procurement – Contracts Monitoring PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Social Care Procurement – Contracts Monitoring

Social Care Procurement – Contracts Monitoring

75 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Social Care Procurement – Contracts Monitoring

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Contracts Monitoring Framework Development FEEDBACK FROM CONSULTATION Social Care Procurement – Contracts Monitoring

  2. Contents: • Introduction • Feedback received through forms from service providers • Feedback received during the consultation workshops • Feedback received from professionals • Feedback received from service users

  3. Introduction The consultation activities • aimed to inform the development of the new contract monitoring framework • have been conducted between December 2006 and April 2007 The consultation process components • Distribution of consultation packs to more than 450 service providers • Organisation of two consultation workshops attended by 25 service providers • Distribution of consultation packs to more than 60 professionals working for or in partnership with Walsall Council • Distribution of 60 questionnaires to service users A B C D

  4. A Feedback from service providers GENERAL INFORMATION • 69 completed feedback forms received out of more than 450 distributed • The location of the providers that returned feedback forms: WS – Walsall B - Birmingham WV – Wolverhampton • 13% of the providers that returned feedback forms are providing services to a very small number of service users (e.g. respite) and/or provide other types of services than direct care (e.g. training, advice, contact etc.)

  5. Feedback from service providers A The content and the volume of the information included for reflecting the QUALITATIVE aspects of the service • a half of the total number of providers that returned feedback forms reported that the content and the volume of the information included in the proposed framework is “Just right” • more than 40% of service provider reported that the content and the volume of information included in the proposed framework is “Too much”

  6. Feedback from service providers A The content and the volume of the information included for reflecting the QUALITY of the service - Suggested Amendments - • The whole document is far too intense, too many standards, too much for our needs, to reduce it, Form A is more detailed than CSCI pre-inspection (5 answers) • Clarity of the forms (clarity on the closing dates for the forms, to explain abbreviations, simplify wording, plain speech) (4 answers) • Not to duplicate CSCI inspection, use CSCI reports (3 answers) • Do not see the reason for some of the information to be included (standards 10.1 – 16.1, staffing details to that depth, Section 4. “Fair Access”) (2 answers) • Some information not applicable, types of service differ, if the form is to be generic information will be in more detail. (2 answers) • Council to remove sexual orientation category as this information should not need to be disclosed, As a manager I do not infringe on the privacy of staff members sexuality (2 answers) • Some information seems duplicated (1 answer) • Form C - Section 2 implies staff are employed specifically to undertake Walsall work - this is not necessarily the case. (1 answer) • To reduce the frequency of reporting (e.g. CSCI is 3 yearly) (1 answer) • Focus on "tick in the box" documents in place. Not enough focus on service user. (1 answer) • Too detailed and time consuming for an organisation providing service to a very small number of service users out of borough (3 answers) • Duplicates what is checked by CSCI, use CSCI reports (2 answers) • Not applicable to our specific service but to care provision (2 answers) • I would not be prepared to disclose sexual orientation without written permission from staff or service users. (1 answer)

  7. Feedback from service providers A The content and the volume of the information included for reflecting the QUANTITATIVE aspects of the service • a half of the total number of providers that returned feedback forms reported that the content and the volume of the information included in the proposed framework is “Just right” • almost 40% of service provider reported that the content and the volume of information being requested is “Too much”

  8. Feedback from service providers A The content and the volume of the information included for reflecting the QUANTITATIVE aspects of the service - Suggested Amendments - • Section 2 on staff hours too time consuming, paperwork time consuming, Time consuming, process keeping in a different format to the needs of the service with no indication of what the information (staff hours etc) is to be used for, Section 2 on staff: better ask for the number of agency staff utilised in the past year. (5 answers) • Section 2 on staff - Does not take into account that staff are not employed solely to undertake work for Walsall, should read staff and vacancies, terminology needs further defining(3 answers) • Frequency of reporting to be reduced – six monthly or annually (2 answers) • Council to remove sexual orientation category, Question Human right on the right to a private/personal/family use for sexual orientation category. concerned about possible ramifications from asking those questions; concerned of contravening Human Rights Act (3 answers) • Some information is repetitive/duplicated (2 answers) • Some information not applicable for our service (2 answers) • Complaint should read resolved and satisfied. (1 answer) • Disabilities should be broken down into specific categories. (1 answer) • Considerable amount of information requested already viewed by inspection visits (1 answer) • The paperwork in general particularly the quality took is a little too prescriptive in the sense that it addresses in places a certain approach to an outcome. If you use another route it may appear that you don't meet the standard as presented on the sheet. (1 answer)

  9. Feedback from service providers A The content and the volume of the information included for reflecting the QUANTITATIVE aspects of the service - Suggested Amendments - • Section 1 Total hours service delivered – information can not be calculated accurately where staff works with service users from different Local Authorities (1 answer) • Section 4 Age – we are not allowed to ask staff members’ age (on application forms), concerned about contravening Human Rights Act (1 answer) • Section 4 Religion – concerned about including this information on an application form and it is not available for existing employees; concerned of contravening Human Rights Act (1 answer) • Form B – Volume of placements needs clarification (1 answer) • Form B – Funding – what annual figure will be reported where the reporting period covers parts of two different financial years. (1 answer) • Form C – “Funded utilised places” and “Total hours service delivered” needs further clarification/explanation (1 answer) • Not relevant for our service – e.g. training, advice (2 answers) • We provide for a very small number of service users (1 answer) • Due to the volume of short term beneficiaries to obtain all the information especially about sexual orientation would be impossible. (1 answer)

  10. A Feedback from service providers Guidance Notes easy to understand and follow • four out of every five service providers consider the Guidance Notes easy to understand and follow

  11. A Feedback from service providers Guidance Notes easy to understand and follow - Suggested Amendments - • Difficult to follow-numbers not all in sequence - got better as I read it more, A bit difficult at first - eventually got better used to format, Need to be read through once or twice to decipher format. (3 answers) • Too Lengthy • Perhaps they are not relevant to the services we provide • Some of it is a little bit mind twisting, you have to follow it very carefully especially section 2, staff working the hours out, but I can not see and other way it could be done. • As with all form filling it is having the time • On Form A - 7 main quality areas - each quality area has 4 levels. Guidance note says provides between 1 to 14 standards for each quality level. On first reading it is not clear:- where are the 1 to 14 standards. • Mostly, but there are area's which require more detail for example the term "Walsall funded" versus "total staff" - the terms are used together - does it mean total staff attached to the service of a client funded by Walsall or the entire staff team? • Quite Performance Management language • Section 6 will a set value be placed for establishments linked to insurance? • Different/ Confusing items covered in the different feedback notes. You are likely to get different interpretations.

  12. A Feedback from service providers Monitoring forms are in a format easy to read/understand • Almost 90% of the service providers consider the Monitoring forms (Form A, Form B and Form C) easy to read/understand

  13. A Feedback from service providers Monitoring forms are in a format easy to read/understand - Suggested Amendments - • Form's too involved • Form A too deep • They look daunting but are not as bad as they initially seem. • Form A1 Particularly difficult to follow and overly long and time consuming. • Yes easily understood. • Yes other than items open to interpretation.

  14. A Feedback from service providers Are service providers currently monitoring the QUALITATIVE information included in the monitoring forms? • A total of 92% of the service providers are currently monitoring or partially monitoring the qualitative information included in the Monitoring Forms • Only 1% of the service providers responded that they are not monitoring the qualitative information

  15. A Feedback from service providers Are service providers currently monitoring the QUANTITATIVE information included in the monitoring forms? • A total of 89% of the service providers are currently monitoring or partially monitoring the quantitative information included in the Monitoring Forms • Only 1% of the service providers responded that they are not monitoring the quantitative information

  16. A Feedback from service providers How easy will be to collate and report annually the information included in Form A – Quality Self Assessment Monitoring Form • For one third (33%) of the service providers it will be easy or very easy to collate and report the information included in Form A and for more than one third (37%) it will be satisfactory. • For almost one quarter (24%) of the respondents it will be difficult or very difficult.

  17. A Feedback from service providers How easy will be to collate and report annually the information included in Form A – Quality Self Assessment Monitoring Form - Answers detailed -

  18. A Feedback from service providers How easy will be to collate and report annually the information included in Form B – Annual Contract Monitoring Form • For 40% of the service providers it will be easy or very easy to collate and report the information included in Form B and for 44% of providers it will be satisfactory. • For only 12% of the respondents it will be difficult or very difficult to report

  19. A Feedback from service providers How easy will be to collate and report annually the information included in Form B – Annual Contract Monitoring Form - Answers detailed -

  20. A Feedback from service providers How easy will be to collate and report annually the information included in Form C – Quarterly Contract Monitoring Form • For one third (34%) of the service providers it will be easy or very easy to collate and report the information included in Form C and for more than one third (35%) it will be satisfactory. • For one quarter (25%) of the respondents it will be difficult or very difficult.

  21. A Feedback from service providers How easy will be to collate and report annually the information included in Form C – Quarterly Contract Monitoring Form - Answers detailed -

  22. A Feedback from service providers • Only 41% of the providers agreed to receive further monitoring information by e-mail.

  23. Feedback from consultation workshops B Form A Group Feedback Positive - Straightforward - Easy to understand - Plain English - Good that there has been work done to produce a monitoring tool with standards to work towards - Clear benchmark for service providers - Generally relevant - Understandable - Should encourage more effective partnership working - Useful checklist for organisations without Quality Assurance processes - Good emphasis on monitoring of abuse - Good layout but one form may be better - Ensures providers are aware of obligation of quality of care - It serves as a reminder of what’s essential in all aspects of care provided - Gives detail of all aspects of care - Good that it gives a clear standard

  24. Feedback from consultation workshops B Form A Group Feedback Development suggested - Need less detail in places - Relevance to contract. Need contract to be amended to reflect monitoring - Clarify requirement for all sections to be worked through - Cost implications - Subjective evidence - Could be simplified - Some of the questions are more applicable to social services, care homes – does not apply to all care sectors i.e. Domiciliary - Needs to be tailored to specific services - Some organisations may find a lot of the form not applicable - In supported living, care is delivered in the home – can’t display documents - There needs to be clarity about whether if, for example, a provider has some ‘not applicable’ standards on level C they can go on to level B. - The assessment needs to be fair if, for example, a provider has all of level C but none of level B and another provider puts ‘not applicable’ for level C and can tick some of level B, they may be doing the same amount of work because their service requires it but not attaining a higher level - Need to liaise with other auditing bodies to avoid duplication - There needs to be some more specific additions for advocacy services i.e. there are some new legal requirements that need to be adhered to - There could be more specific information on the form to make it accessible to e.g. Learning Disabilities and Mental Health Services - There needs to be clarity on whether this information will be validated. If not why does the tick form need to be completed

  25. Feedback from consultation workshops B Form A Group Feedback Development suggested - There needs to be clarity on the storage of CRB information. The advice from CSCI is not to store the actual document. Can the disclosure number and the date be stored - There is no legal requirement to renew the CRB certificate every three years so we need to clarify why this is a requirement in the standards - No standards refer to how service users are involved in the process - The awareness, knowledge and understanding amongst providers needs to be increased - When completing a QAF for Supporting People, we need to describe what the evidence is. It needs to be clearer if this is required for the new monitoring documents - It would be good to have a comments box after each section - It would be good to be able to add if providers have worked towards quality standards such as Investors in People and ISO 9000 etc. - Different CSCI inspectors have advised different procedures with regards to CRB and POVA clearances before employing staff. How will this affect how the standards are attained on the form - Induction needs to include specifics for different service areas e.g. LDAF training for the Learning Disabilities service - More specific training requirements need to be noted e.g. manual handling - Where a standard is ‘not applicable’ add a comments box - It would be good to be able to passport through sections if, for example, a A/B rating for supporting people has been attained or a similar level with CSCI - The timescales for completion will be difficult and there is a risk of duplication

  26. Feedback from consultation workshops B Form B Group Feedback Positive - Generally clear and relevant - Should be straightforward to collect information - Self explanatory - Information is readily available - Easy to understand - Form OK Development suggested - More information could be provided re: staff. Does this include staff of whole service? This needs to be clarified - Section 3 – Clarify Young Adults with a disability - Section 4 – Clarify measure of units e.g. hrs/days/clients etc. - The language of Section 4 needs clarity depending on service e.g. advocacy partnerships - The guidance is unclear in section 7. Does this include management time? - Section 6 – It would be good to validate insurance requirements - Section 7 could be clearer regarding the staff reporting requirements - Section 7 should show total hours - There may be an issue with regards to the ‘total capacity’. Constraints may prevent the compliance of contracted target (hrs etc.). How would this affect performance? - Clarify use of agency staff if performance dips - Need to consider the impact of council policies on capacity and attendance - What is a placement i.e. British Red Cross, Domiciliary care? Need to clarify - The value of contract annually depends on the number of service users for some providers. - The job title column could be wider

  27. Feedback from consultation workshops B Form C Group Feedback Positive - Generally relevant - Good to monitor staffing levels of absence - Good to look at nature of complaints and monitor - It helps to log complaints to review service - Helps the provider to audit hours of services Development suggested - Less relevant for ‘sexual orientation’. This may be seen as being intrusive and is unlikely to be productive – false indicators? - Section 1 – include an option to qualify/explain - Section 2 – needs further explanation as to why this information is required. How will this link to Section 7 Form B? - Cross reference all forms to appropriate section of guidance notes - Clarify the significance of ‘temp’ staff. This is not always used as cover - Need to consider resources as this is time consuming and may be duplicating other requirements - To record age in the categories noted will be difficult - Difficult to explain categories (e.g. sexual orientation) to some service users. Also may not be relevant for staff - This form may be better annually - The level of time consumed completing the forms will depend on the numbers of staff and service users – need equity - Need clarity on staffing statistics. Some services always work bank holidays, ‘temp’ doesn’t necessarily mean agency staff. It also is unclear if it is the bank holidays that are worked or taken - CSCI monitor staffing levels. Need to know what the staffing statistics are used for

  28. Feedback from consultation workshops B Form C Group Feedback Development suggested - All staffing information is provided during business review meetings for some providers – can’t this be shared? - ‘Person with a disability’ is an outdated expression. ‘Disabled person’ is correct - The religion category needs expanding - The reason why so much equal opportunities information should be clarified further in the guidance notes - What is the relevance of Bank holiday hours and all the other hours requested on the form - Needs to define what is meant by total hours service delivered - Need to define disability category e.g. Learning, Physical, Mental, Hearing, Blindness - Are volunteers included when reporting staffing statistics? - Is it worth expanding the disability categories? - Need to clarify position on shelf life of CRB’s - Need clarity as some of the information requested is open to interpretation - Provide more space for people to write in - Section 1 – Total hours service delivered is difficult to separate i.e. care/support (SP related), cleaners/cooks - This would be difficult and time consuming to complete every quarter and is very in depth for contract monitoring - The information may be duplicated elsewhere e.g. for Supporting People