Personalisation and its effects South West of England Regional Housing Learning and Improvement Network: Wednesday 4 th March Martin Stevens, Social Care.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Shaping the Market Provider Engagement Events June and July 2009 Summary.
Advertisements

Who Cares? The Future of Adult Care and Support in Northern Ireland - Discussion Document.
Independence, Well-being and Choice Our Vision for the Future of Social Care for Adults in England.
Sins and Synergies: Personalising protection Martin Stevens Social Care Workforce Research Unit Kings College London.
Edinburgh Shadow Strategic Planning Group Wednesday 18 March 2015.
Introduction and overview Care Act What is this module about?  Part 1 of the Care Act and its statutory guidance  Who’s it for?  Adult social.
Self Directed Support What does it mean The Theory and the Practice Speaker: Ian Hood.
East of England Implications of the Care Bill for Market Shaping Activity March 2014.
Parvaneh Rabiee, Kate Baxter, Gillian Parker and Sylvia Bernard RNIB Research Day 2014: Rehabilitation and social care RNIB, 105 Judd Street, London 20.
RCVS Network Meeting - Health & Social Care 3 rd June 2014 Richmond Council Update Cathy Kerr, Director Adult & Community Services.
The changing pattern of funding (personalisation and self directed support) Ian Hood, Co-ordinator Learning Disability Alliance Scotland.
Meeting the Challenges of the Care Act Virginia McCririck for the RCPA Conference on 26 th November 2014.
The Care Act: Reforming Care & Support Staff Conference 10 November 2014 Cathy Kerr, Director, Adult and Community Services.
What Workforce for Personalised Care? Martin Stevens 10 October 2012.
Personalisation and Respite Provision Evidence from England, UK Dr Karen Jones University of Kent, England.
School for Social Care Research Improving the evidence base for adult social care practice Council-managed Personal Budgets: Developments in the home care.
The Care Act 2014 Caroline Baria Service Director, Personal Care and Support Adult Social Care Health & Public Protection Department.
School for Social Care Research Improving the evidence base for adult social care practice Personalised Home Care Services for Older People Using Managed.
Up Close and Personal – an Introduction. Objectives An understanding of the role of Children England in the context of the Family Strategic Partnership.
Care Act 2014 Anne Clarke Head of Adult Social Care Sue Alexander Head of Finance & Business Support 23 rd April 2015.
The Future of Adult Social Care John Crook March 2011.
Adult Social Care Transformation and Supporting People SHIP Conference February 4 th 2010 Helen Duckworth London Borough of Brent ASC Transformation Team.
Adult Care and Support Commissioning Strategies Sarah Mc Bride - Head of Commissioning, Performance and Improvement Ann Hughes – Acting Senior.
Better Deal for Business Presentation to LSC West Yorkshire Skills Team Pat Lister Better Deal for Business Officer at Yorkshire Forward.
Support and aspiration: A new approach to special educational needs and disability Ann Gross, DfE 7 November 2011.
Health Overview Policy and Scrutiny Panel Update on Health Reform Proposals James Foster North Somerset Council.
Working together : a provider’s perspective on commissioning Maria S. Parsons Dementia Lead for Sanctuary Care.
Health, Wellbeing and Social Care Scrutiny Committee.
Safeguarding in the Era of the Personalisation Agenda Jill Manthorpe Social Care Workforce Research Unit King’s College London (also Senior Investigator.
Evaluation of the Individual Budget Pilot Projects Karen Jones, Ann Netten, José-Luis Fernández, Martin Knapp, David Challis, Caroline Glendinning, Sally.
Getting it right for people with complex needs: whose responsibility? David Behan, Director General Social Care Local Government and Care Partnerships.
LGA Community Well-being Board John Dixon Executive Director Adults and Children, West Sussex President Association of Directors of Adults Social Services.
Dr Mary Larkin De Montfort University 24 October 2013.
Health and Wellbeing Scrutiny Select Committee Sue Lightup; Community, Health and Social Care Mel Sirotkin; Public Health.
Individual Budgets and the future of adult social care Martin Stevens 3, Caroline Glendinning 1, Nicola Moran 1, David Challis 2, José-Luis Fernández 2,
Personal Health Budgets Evaluation Evaluation of the Personal Health Budgets Pilots Julien Forder 1, Karen Jones 1, James Caiels 1, Paul Dolan 2, Caroline.
Investing in Stockport Preventative Commissioning Strategy Part 2.
1 Self-directed Support – Older People’s Service Providers EVOC thinkSpace 20 June 2014.
Update CASSI Select Committee 9 th March 2010 Adult Services Update CASSI Select Committee 9 th March 2010 Ann Workman Liz Hanley Simon Willson.
A Vision for Adult Social Care: Capable Communities and Active Citizens The Coalition Government’s approach to future reform of adult social care.
LIVING WITHIN OUR MEANS – ADULT SOCIAL CARE John Bolton Interim Executive Director.
The Care Act Learning and Development Programme November 25 TH 2014 Lynda Tarpey - Hasca Ltd.
Integration of Health and Social Care Keith Darragh – Assistant Director Safeguarding, Quality and Business Strategy.
Community, Health and Social Care Directorate Integrated Commissioning Unit.
Five Year Forward View: Personal Health Budgets and Integrated Personal Commissioning Jess Harris January 2016.
‘PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST’ Colin Pitman January 2009.
‘PUTTING PEOPLE FIRST’ Alan Dean February Putting People First  Putting People First’: A shared vision and commitment to the transformation of.
Care and Support White Paper. Overview The Care and Support White Paper was published alongside the draft Care and Support Bill and a progress report.
SOCIAL CARE CURRENT DATA AND GAPS RAPHAEL WITTENBERG PERSONAL SOCIAL SERVICES RESEARCH UNIT ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY CONFERENCE 29 JANUARY 2013.
Community Capacity Building Barry Glasspell Community Capacity Lead Bolton Council Children’s and Adult Health & Social Care.
The Workforce, Education Commissioning and Education and Learning Strategy Enabling world class healthcare services within the North West.
Care and support in Extra Care Housing Technical Brief 1 Content and Key points 12 th April 2011 Sue Garwood Extra Care Specialist.
Extra care, the future. What is it? Denise Gillie.
Middle Managers Workshop 2: Measuring Progress. An opportunity for middle managers… Two linked workshops exploring what it means to implement the Act.
Person Centred Services from an RSL perspective (integrated services to support independence) Tim Edwards & Sue Hailstones.
Overview and Scrutiny, Coordinating and Call In Committee Personalisation Presentation 3 March 2009.
0 Putting People First Housing and social care – working together to deliver personalisation May 2009.
The implications of Individual Budgets for Extra Care Housing London & SE Housing LIN 11th June 2008 Angela Nicholls, CSIP Consultant
Skills for Care North West Personalisation and Workforce Development.
Putting People First - Individual Budgets and Social Care Transformation Housing LIN Presentation by Sarah Shatwell 4 th March 2009.
The Transformation of Social Care Janet Walden 13th November 2008.
So what? Implications from the National Evaluation Presentation for RiPFA
The Government’s Assistive Technology & Telecare Initiative Denise Gillie Department of Health.
Very Sheltered Housing An Alternative to Residential Care.
An Evaluation of the Individual Budgets Pilot in Coventry: service users’ accounts of having an individual budget.
Background Significant reform across aged care sector aiming to create greater national consistency and more integration across the care system. Changes.
Demographic Changes – future models of provision for older people
Personal Budgets “Lessons Learned”
Denise Elliott Interim Head of Commissioning Adult & Health Services
Aged care research project overview of findings and key themes
Presentation transcript:

Personalisation and its effects South West of England Regional Housing Learning and Improvement Network: Wednesday 4 th March Martin Stevens, Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King’s College London

Evaluation Team Caroline Glendinning; Nicola Moran LSE branch: Martin Knapp; José-Luis Fernandez University of Kent branch: Ann Netten, Karen Jones University of Manchester branch: David Challis; Mark Wilberforce; Sally Jacobs Jill Manthorpe; Martin Stevens

Introduction  Personalisation  Individual Budgets Evaluation findings  Housing 21 – broadening the debate report  Implications

alisation-and-the-Tailored-Sales-Process.html

Government goals  Better prevention and earlier intervention for improved health and well-being  More choice, control and a stronger voice  Improve access to community services and tackle inequalities  Better support for people with longer term needs – better partnerships and more integrated services Source: Care Services Improvement Partnership presentation: ‘Department Of Health Direction of Travel – Policy Framework’

Principles underlying IBs  Greater role for users in assessing needs  Users should know resources available before planning how needs met. Resource Allocation System (RAS) recommended  Encourage users to identify desired outcomes and how to achieve these  Support individuals in using IBs  Test opportunities to integrate funding streams and simplify/integrate/align multiple assessment processes and eligibility criteria (NB No NHS)  Experiment with different ways of deploying IBs

The IB pilots  13 local authorities  representative mix but higher than average take-up of direct payments  Mix of user groups (OP, LD, MH, P/SI)  Mix of funding streams  Target numbers onto IBs by June 2007 (for evaluation)  Implementation support from CSIP

How were IBs evaluated?  Randomised trial – IB and comparison groups (but lots of flexibility within those groups re deployment)  Baseline data from local authority records  Follow-up interviews after 6 months  some challenges (logistical, instrumentation, interviewee exhaustion, proxies)  In-depth user interviews – support planning process  Interviews with IB leads, providers, funding stream lead officers, other managers  Interviews and diaries, front-line staff and first-tier managers  Add-on study of impact of IBs on carers

Evaluation findings  Processes  Inputs  Money  Outcomes  Cost effectiveness

Processes  Growing use of self-assessment and outcomes focus  Most sites (not all) developed RAS  Care managers spent more time helping plan IBs  Role for independent brokers  Care managers expressed more satisfaction with user relationship  More role for users and carers in planning support  Boundaries and legitimate use of social care resources  Monitoring and reviewing developing

Excluding NHS resource from IBs  Extensive partnerships with PCTs and providers  ‘Missed opportunity’  NHS Continuing Care – threats to personalised support  IBs and mental health  Integrated services and budgets  Indivisibility of ‘health’ and ‘social’ care outcomes  Cost-shunting

How much money from where?  The average annual gross value of an IB was found to be £11,450.1  Varied by service user group  People with physical disabilities £11,150  People with learning disabilities £18,610  People with mental health problems £5,530  Older people £7,860  Almost all (99%) included social care funding  11% had Supporting people; 8% Independent Living Fund; 1 Access to Work; No Disabled Facilities Grants ££££££££££ ££££££££££

Outcomes of IBs  Interviews at 6 months; only 45% had IB support in place  Overall quality of Life (single QoL question)  MH – IB group reported better QoL  Psychological wellbeing (GHQ)  OP – IB group lower well-being

More outcomes of IBs  Social care outcomes (Adult Social Care Outcome Toolkit measure)  Higher levels of ‘control’ in IB group, particularly for people with learning disabilities  Satisfaction with services provided  IB group more satisfied with outcome  Especially people with physical disabilities  Older people  Concerns about managing budgets?  Anxiety about change?  Lower budgets, more personal care, less flexibility?  Level of IB affects outcome

Cost effectiveness?  Some evidence of cost-effectiveness in the overall sample with respect to social care outcomes  Weaker evidence of cost-effectiveness with respect to psychological well-being  But picture varies significantly by user group  IBs appear more cost-effective for People with physical disabilities or mental health problems  No evidence of cost-effectiveness for older people  Mixed pattern for people with learning disabilities, slightly lower costs, slightly lower outcomes

User responses to choice and control  ‘I don’t want anything different’  Anxiety or unwillingness to manage money  ‘Carers are all laid on for me at the moment and I haven’t got the time and I haven’t got the brain really to work out financial details or anything like that, and I’m quite happy with the arrangement I’ve got.’ (Older person)  Able and willing to handle finances without stress  ‘so I thought, right, well I can do this cheaper myself so … I went to a smaller, cheaper and far superior agency.’ (Older person)

Perceived areas of risk  Poorer quality services  Service users being overwhelmed by the need to manage the IB  IB used inappropriately and unproductively  Hiring suitable and firing unsuitable workers  More open to physical and financial abuse  Loss of collective ‘voice’

‘Building Choices’: Personal Budgets and Older People’s Housing  No specific research on implications for social housing (particularly specialist provision)  Housing strategy – chimes with choice and control goals  Stakeholder workshop aimed to:  Identify issues  Share good practice  Broaden debate on personal budgets and housing

Themes from Housing21 report Organisation and expertise Landlord duties Risk Funding issues Diversity considerations

Organisation and Expertise  More active tenant role  Housing providers may provide brokerage  Quality of Information  Supporting People budgets pooled – tenants opt out of housing related support?  Core and add on schemes  opt in/opt out? –  Impact on sheltered housing staff  Closer involvement with care providers  More involvement in advising on care and financial issues?  More of a floating role

Landlord duties  Responsibility for risk  Response if residents opt out  Duty of care to third party providers?  In relation to equipment and adaptations  To those not taking up personal budgets

Risk to providers  Risk to extra care housing package  Choice of provider  Opting out of night care for example  Sheltered housing – changes in terms of increased flexibility reduce ‘24 hour’ availability?  Regulation – risk of recategorisation and inspection  Better understanding of the market

Risk and the built environment  Developing PEEPs?  Sustainable communal areas and facilities  Progressive privacy designs  Risks and security  Leasing/rental agreements in respect of specialist facilities and equipment  Insurance/liability  Training  Charging

Funding issues  Block contracts/individual contracts  Increased costs  Staff recruitment/retention  Uncertainty over contract duration  Minimum ‘sign up’ periods (incentive to purchase else where?)  Cost transparency – personal budgeteers  Increased commercialisation  Consolidate or speculate?

Diversity considerations  Personal budgets more attractive to people from BME groups?  Equity across groups  Mental health and capacity issues – a two tier system?  Increasing diversity with age

Implications  Safeguarding  Commissioning  Cost neutrality  Practice  Policy

How can we move forward on safeguarding and personalisation?  Not just a council affair  Nor even statutory sector  Way of revitalising adult safeguarding  But there will be decisions about monitoring (over and under protection)  And the safety net of social care may be tested.

New commissioning roles for local authorities  Informing the market – both supply and demand  Supporting providers through change  Promoting standards  Managing tensions efficiency vs personalisation

Can IBs remain cost-neutral?  Resource allocation  Managing the ‘winners and losers’  From bulk purchase to individual buyers  Integrating funding streams  ILF review  Increased demand for IBs  Mental health services

Practice issues  Managing change  Information  Training  Champions  Involve stakeholders  Managing risk  New ways of deploying IBs  Spread understanding of different approaches  Managing finance arrangements  New roles for social workers/care coordinators

Issues for policy  Resource allocation – underlying principles  Funding streams – personal budgets (social care only)  NHS budgets?  FACS and charging policies  Personal Budgets available for residential services  Individualism over collectivism  The legitimate ‘boundaries’ of adult social care

Conclusion  IBs – developing example of personalisation  Suggested positive outcomes  Identified areas of concern  Managing change  Integrating safeguarding  Balancing individualism and collectivsim  Implications across public services

Contact details Martin Stevens Social Care Workforce Research Unit King's College London Strand London WC2R 2LS