ITEM AS7(a)
ADULT SERVICES SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 8 JULY 2009
CARE QUALITY COMMISSION SELF ASSESSMENT FOR ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PROCESS
Report by Director for Social & Community Services
Purpose of the Report
1. The purpose of this report is to update this Scrutiny Committee on the arrangements for monitoring performance of adult social care by the Care Quality Commission.
Background
2. Formal national ratings of social care services were launched by the Social Services Inspectorate in 1999 to reflect the year 1998/9. The original ratings highlighted authorities rated as excellent or failing and was based purely on statistical returns to central government. Oxfordshire was never named as either excellent or failing under this regime.
3. The system of rating was changed to a star rating for the year 2001/2. This rating worked on a scale from zero to three stars and was based on a much wider set of evidence. Oxfordshire was awarded 1 star for adult social care from 2001/2 to 2004/5 where it was awarded 2 stars. It has been a two star authority since that time. For the last two years, 2006/7 and 2007/8 the initial award by the inspector for the county was three stars, but this has been reduced to two stars by subsequent moderators.
4. Although the headline star rating system has not changed since 2001/2, the criteria for assessing the rating changed in 2006/7. From this point authorities were separately judged on seven key outcomes described in the White Paper ‘Our Health, Our Care, Our Say’. The ratings for the last two years are given in table 1:
Arrangements for 2008/9
5. There have been two significant changes in the performance assessment process in 2008/9.
· The star ratings had previously been awarded by the Commission for Social Care Inspectorate (CSCI), which grew out of the Social Care Inspectorate. CSCI merged with the Health Care Commission and the Mental Heath Care Commission to form the Care Quality Commission (CQC). · The government implemented the new national performance arrangements with the comprehensive area assessment (CAA) and the new national indicator set.
6. These changes have meant that there will be no reporting of star ratings for adult social care. However the individual ratings on the outcomes in table 1 will still be reported. No separate judgement will be made on leadership and commissioning and use of resources, but the Care Quality Commission will provide a narrative report on these areas for the Audit Commission to feed into the general Corporate Assessment within CAA.
How Performance is Assessed
7. The CQC publish a detailed list of the key characteristics that determine whether each of the outcomes has been met. They use the following evidence to assess the level of performance:
· A self assessment completed by the council. This is a document, accompanied by an annex of data. The document is some 80 pages long and addresses some technical questions in the criteria. The council are currently producing a summary of this assessment to share with councillors, staff, partners and the public. · Any comments from people who use social care and their carers. Within this the CQC will specifically be seeking comments from the Local Involvement Network (LINk). LINKs are recently formed groups which aim to give citizens a stronger voice in how their health and social care services are delivered. They are run by local individuals and groups and independently supported. Their role is to find out what people want, monitor local services and to use their powers to hold them to account. · Information from the National Indicator Set, and data from other national returns; · Information from regulatory inspections. The CQC also regulate some services; currently care home placements and domiciliary care. Each provider is awarded a star rating. The CQC assess the authority on the aggregate scores of these providers. · Any relevant service inspection, such as the current Independence, Well-being and Choice inspection and progress against any subsequent action plans; · delivery of relevant Local Area Agreement (LAA) targets; · delivery of local targets underpinned by the understanding of local needs; · any other issues suggesting cause for concern which have been discussed with the council such as safeguarding, complaints and enforcement action.
8. The Care Quality Commission hold routine business meetings with the authority twice a year and hold an additional annual review meeting to assess this evidence.
Timetable
9. The key dates for the current performance assessment year are included in table 2.
RECOMMENDATION
10. The Scrutiny Committee is RECOMMENDED to note this report.
JOHN JACKSON Director for Social & Community Services
Background Papers: Nil
Contact Officer: Steve Thomas, Performance Information Manager Tel: (01865) 815828 June 2009
|