Agenda item

Councillor H.I. Jones declared a personal interest in that his daughter-in-law works for Social Care Services. 

Councillor K. Madge declared personal interests in that his wife is employed as a sister at Amman Valley Hospital and his daughter works in Social Care Services.

Councillor J. Williams declared a personal interest in that she is an un-paid carer.

The Committee received for its consideration, the proposal to introduce a new charge for a placement into a flexi-bed in a care home. Members noted that the matter had been referred to the Social Care & Health Scrutiny Committee by County Council, following its meeting on the 8th July 2015.   

The Chair and members of the Committee expressed disappointment that this matter had not been presented to the Scrutiny Committee, prior to its submission to the Executive Board in June 2015. The Director of Community Services acknowledged the Committee’s comments but reminded members that the proposal had been endorsed by County Council at its meeting on the 24th February 2015 as part of the Revenue Budget Strategy 2015/16 to 2017/18. As the decision had been taken by County Council, officers had progressed with the proposal. 

The following issues were discussed during consideration of the report:

The difference between Convalescence and Flexi-Beds was queried as it appeared that there was little to differentiate between the two. The Director of Community Services and the Senior Business Support Manager (Social Care) informed the Committee that Convalescence Beds were provided to enable older people to maintain their independence, to gain confidence and progress with their recovery in preparation for their return home or other long term care arrangements. Flexi-Beds on the other hand were to assist in facilitating a hospital discharge and prevent hospital admission, especially when awaiting the start or restart of home-based care packages or when awaiting minor adaptations to the home such as handrails. The Director acknowledged that from a public perspective, there would appear to be an overlap in these two services and that it might be an appropriate time to review the scheme’s long-term sustainability, particularly in light of the Convalescence beds available across the county. However, this was a separate task to the decision as to whether or not to charge. The Committee agreed to this suggestion.  

It was suggested that it was unfair to penalise individuals financially when it was the Local Authority’s fault that they might have to utilise a flexi-bed in the first instance (e.g. an individual waiting for a hand rail or other supports to be installed in their home). It was also felt by members this reflected a breakdown in communications between the Authority’s services and that Social Care and Housing Services needed to work much more closely to ensure that individuals could return home immediately. 

It was suggested that the Health Board was taking advantage of the Local Authority as it could simply discharge patients from hospital to meet its targets, even though individuals were unable to return home for genuine reasons. It was asked whether the first three weeks could be free of charge, subsidised by the Health Board. The Director of Community Services informed the Committee that there had recently been some constructive dialogue with the Health Board regarding convalescent beds and the Authority had just received funding from the Health Board purchasing such beds to relieve pressure on hospital wards. He noted the Committee’s proposals and agreed that officers could undertake a review of the flexi-bed scheme in the future as well as consider the impact of different charging rates. However, this would not necessarily address the budget pressure.

In response to a query about the next steps, the Director of Community Services reminded the Committee that this decision would need to be reversed by the Executive Board and that consideration would also need to be given to the fact that £73,000 had already been removed from the Department’s budget and this funding gap would need to be addressed. It was then proposed that the Committee request the Executive Board to reverse its decision and that the Council’s financial reserves be used to meet the shortfall for this financial year. It was also requested that due to the strength of feeling amongst Committee members about this matter, the Chair and Vice-Chair attend the meeting of the Executive Board at which this matter would be discussed, to voice the Committee’s concerns.

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED that:

8.1       The report be received.

8.2       The Executive Board be requested to reverse the decision of County Council and recommend that the shortfall in this year’s budget be met by utilising the Council’s financial reserves.

8.3       The Committee supports the undertaking of a review of the Flexi-Care Scheme to ascertain its suitability for the future.

8.4       As part of a review of the Scheme, officers consider different charging rates depending on the length of time spent in a flexi-bed. 

8.5       The Committee wishes the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Social Care & Health Scrutiny Committee to attend the relevant meeting of the Executive Board to express the strength of the Committee’s feelings in relation to this matter.