|
Return
to Agenda
Return
to EX11
ITEM EX11
- ANNEX 4
EXECUTIVE
– 1 OCTOBER 2002
INTEGRATING
COMMUNITY EQUIPMENT SERVICES
SWOT Analysis
of the current services
Strengths
- Protocols between
Health and Social Services in place to prevent unnecessary duplication
of assessment and provision of equipment
- Cross county protocols
for the carrying out of minor works
- Positive working
relationship with Dialability information and advice service
- Positive working
relationships with user organisations to ensure an integrated community
equipment service
- Contract with
our present supplier has been a positive one and it seems that Oxfordshire
is different to some other authorities in that both Health and Social
Services are signed up to a common contract with a provider
- Regular meetings
between the supplier and users of the service to ensure effective service
development
- Regular meetings
between clinicians and Dialability and contractor to review the list
of equipment provided
- Ensure Medical
Devices Agency directives are acted on
- Good Performance
Assessment Framework (PAF) score rating for delivery of equipment costing
under £1,000 within 3 weeks
Weaknesses
- Funding from Department
of Health has not been ring fenced or identified through SAFF (Service
and Financial Framework) process
- Lack of co-terminosity
with the Primary Care Trusts
- Delivery within
present contract has an enhanced cost to outside the Oxfordshire borders
- Assessments are
not shared between other Social Services and Health outside the county
boundary
- Some areas of
equipment provision that are outside the more widely used system
Opportunities
- Department of
Health guidance as part of National Service Framework for Older People
Standard 2
- Working closely
with adjacent local authorities
- To tender for
a revised contract to reflect any additional features that are identified
- Working closely
with voluntary organisations
- The Integrating
Community Equipment Service guidance is giving an opportunity for users,
stakeholders and carers to be involved in developing the new service
- Improved involvement
of stakeholders including users and carers in developing services
- Clarity over priorities
for service across agencies
- Greater efficiencies
between organisations
- Improved management
of demand and budgets
- Clearer processes
- Reduced waiting
lists for assessments
Threats
- Lack of ring fenced
funding
- Opportunistic
short term funding leads to raised expectations
- If the new service
does not have full agreement and support from all stakeholders
- Milestones may
be difficult to achieve on time because there is no dedicated project
worker for this substantial project
- Increasing demand
and expectations leading to increasing waiting time for assessment
- Reduced interagency
working and co-operation leading to less efficient use of resources
Return to TOP
|