1 Adult social care Trade Associations meeting 8 July

2 Agenda 2 Agenda itemLeadTime Welcome and introductions Andrea Sutcliffe10.00 Minutes and actions from last meeting Andrea Sutcliffe/ Alice Rawcliffe Ratings and updates -Proposal for relationship leads -Update on inspections Andrea Sutcliffe10.20 Safeguarding Sally Warren10.35 ADASS Portal updateChris Cook11.05 AOB Implementation meeting 11.30

3 Welcome and introductions

4 Minutes and actions from last meeting

5 Ratings and updates

Ratings picture 6 Summary of ASC ratings on CQC website: 6 July 2015 OutstandingGood Requires Improvement Inadequate Residential services 11 (0.07%) 2565 (15%) 1618 (10%) 364 (2%) Community Services 5 (0.06%) 577 (7%) 232 (3%) 48 (0.6%) Hospice Services 8 (4%) 18 (8%) 2 (1%) 1 (0.5%) Total no. of inspections: (0.4%) 3160 (58%) 1852 (34%) 413 (7.6%) Total services 24 (0.1%) 3160 (12.4%) 1852 (7.2%) 413 (1.6%) Number of registered services as at 28 June 2015 Type of serviceTotal number Residential services16,914 Community services8,445 Hospice services223 Total25,582

Developed proposal - Strategic level role – held by Head of Inspection face to face meetings per year - Close contact during rest of year Relationship leads will be allocated to Trade Associations during July and August with a view to the structure being in place from September We will review the structure and process in July 2016 so that any changes can be implemented by September Relationship leads for trade associations

Return inspection timescales reviewed RatingRe-inspection timescales OutstandingNo change – remain at 2 years Good (between 1 October 2014 to 30 April 2015) Extended to 2 years (1,992 locations) Good (after 30 April 2015)No change – remain at 18 months Requires improvementNo change – remain at 12 months InadequateNo change – remain at six months

Why? Following some concerns from providers about: delay between inspection visits and draft reports reports not reflecting the verbal feedback given at the end of an inspection. Written inspection feedback forms (1)

What? The feedback form will provide a brief written summary of the key points from the verbal feedback given at the end of the visit – both positives and concerns - in a format that can be retained by the manager. This will act as a reminder, to avoid key points being forgotten or misunderstood, and to encourage them to begin to action any areas of improvement immediately. Written inspection feedback forms (2)

How? We have completed a pilot for the form and feedback from the registered managers involved in the pilot was very positive. The feedback confirmed that the form clarified the key points and gave them something to share with their managers and staff, and enabled them to identify any immediate areas of work. Written inspection feedback forms (3)

When? This will be implemented shortly: Arranging for the form to be printed. Guidance to be written. Implementation date to be confirmed. Written inspection feedback forms

13 Safeguarding

Improving Safeguarding Project in CQC: o Policies o Systems and processes o Training o Intelligence and information o Communications and engagement o Performance, management action and assurance Safeguarding

Published last month. Tested on provider online community. Sets out key roles as: o Checking that care providers have effective systems/ processes and publishing our findings. o Using Intelligent Monitoring of information we receive about safeguarding to assess risks. o Holding providers to account by taking regulatory action to ensure they rectify any shortfalls in their arrangements to safeguard children and adults, and that they maintain improvements. o Working with local partners to assist them in conducting inquiries or investigations regarding safeguarding children and adults. Statement of CQC roles and responsibilities

Boundary between safeguarding, safety and poor quality often blurred. Feeling across sector that too much is routed through “safeguarding” when it is really poor quality - it becomes the safety net. Collectively, we risk overwhelming the safeguarding system with too many inappropriate referrals. Interested in developing work which would focus on how we improve quality - and thereby prevent safeguarding risks and reduce number of incidents. Safeguarding: prevention as well as cure?

A narrative to support action? There is great care out there. But there is also too much poor care –this means people are afraid they will receive poor care. There are a variety of different reasons why poor care happens (for example funding levels, staff availability). There is collective responsibility to make improvements: o Commissioners and funders o Providers o Staff o Regulators and other national partners o The voice of people who use services. What is our individual(/organisational) commitment to making a difference? Safeguarding: improving quality

Do you agree too much goes through safeguarding. What is driving this behaviour? Do you agree with a renewed focus on preventing safeguarding risks and incidents through a collective endeavour to improve quality? What are your views on the narrative? What would be needed from us all to make a real difference? Safeguarding: issues to discuss

19 ADASS Portal

Overview 20 Pilot recap Key council and CQC requirements identified Pilot findings Next steps Questions

Pilot recap 21 October 2014 until March councils signed up. Start small using existing technology. Share CQC intelligence through local area profiles – information already in public domain. Use as a base to capture local authority requirements. Explore CQC requirements and capacity of councils to meet these.

Key council requirements 22 Regularly refreshed up to date regulatory data. Data on services outside of their local authority. Solid regional and national benchmarks. Access to raw data AND report format information. Appetite to access PIR data.

CQC requirements 23 Three key items identified: Number of commissioned places/services. Embargoes/placement restrictions per service. Elevated concerns per service.

Pilot findings 24 All requirements cannot be met at this time. Secure File Transfer Protocol (FTP) technology is not appropriate. Existing CQC projects could possibly meet many council requirements by supporting sharing of CQC generated data. Collection of data from councils highly problematic – only 8 returns from participating councils.

Next steps 25 Evaluation report recommends stand alone system for sharing information is not pursued. CQC data can be shared by incorporating into existing CQC information sharing projects. Alternative routes for capturing Council held data should be explored. Internal ‘discovery’ paper being progressed to further explore these options.

26 AOB Connectivity across health and social care, in particular in relation to mental health (Kathy Roberts) 26

27 Implementation meeting Inadequate services Outstanding ratings (action from last meeting) 27