10.40 am
At the last meeting of this
Committee the Oxfordshire Local Involvement Network (LINk)
made reference to the closure in 2007 of the Oxford Drug Recovery Project
(DRP). Members of the OJHOSC were concerned by what they heard from the LINk particularly as it appeared that there had been no
consultation when the closure of the DRP had taken place. Furthermore,
undertakings had been given to reopen the DRP but , to date, there had been no action.
Members decided to defer
full consideration of the report until this meeting so that additional
contributors could be invited to enable a rounded picture to be developed.
Richard Lohman and Adrian
Chant from the LINk will attend again for this item.
In addition the following people will attend the meeting to provide background
to the past and future of the DRP:
- Jo
Melling, DAAT Director;
- Alan
Webb, PCT Director of Service Redesign;
- Darren
Worthington, Chief Executive of SMART, a charity working to reduce drug and
alcohol use in Oxfordshire;
- Glenda
Daniels, service user involvement coordinator of an independent charity that
represents drug and alcohol service users; and
- Dr
Angela Jones who is a GP who worked from 1999 – 2007 in the Luther Street Medical
Centre in Oxford providing drug and alcohol services for people experiencing
homelessness in Oxford.
A copy of the LINk report from the January meeting is attached at JHO7(a) together with a report from the
DAAT (JHO7(b)).
Minutes:
The Committee welcomed Jo Melling,
DAAT Director; Alan Webb, Oxfordshire PCT; Darren Worthington, Chief Executive
of SMART; Glenda Daniels, service user involvement coordinator of OUT; Dr
Angela Jones, GP formerly working at the Luther Street Medical Centre; and
Richard Lohman, Steering Group member of Oxfordshire LINk to the meeting;
Alan Webb introduced the item giving a brief resume of the
situation to date, stating that the service had been retendered in 2007 as a
result of a change in its major funder, which had previously been Housing
Services. Since then the major challenge had centred around finding suitable
premises. He reported that property had now been found in Iffley
Road, Oxford and would be secured in the near future. Mr Webb pointed out that
when the PCT as host commissioner had gone out to re-tender, the DAAT had been
assured that the service would not be disadvantaged and that funding would be
provided from out of county placements if needed.
Jo Melling added that, when
re-commissioning the service, the principal aim had been to develop a good,
effective local treatment programme which was different from other services provided in other areas. At
the time, practitioners had been consulted on the new service, but the premises
issue had been sprung upon them and there had thus been no opportunity to go
out to further consultation. Her view was that the clients had not felt
disadvantaged by this, citing statistics from an annual user survey. No
individual cases of people disadvantaged had been brought to light by service
users themselves of by other organisations. In response to a question from the
acting Chairman asking if she was sufficiently confident that there had been
sufficient consultation, Ms Melling and Glenda
Daniels assured the Committee that the service consulted constantly and that
they were satisfied with the level of involvement. Some cases had been resolved
via advocacy over the last three years and each had been assured that
placements could be provided out of county. Moreover the new service was
working with SMART to ensure that there was ongoing service user consultation.
Users were happy with the service provided.
In response to a question from a member of the Committee
asking if all the service users were happy to work with SMART, and if there was
a reciprocal consultation arrangement with other counties, Glenda Daniels
commented that SMART was a criminal justice focused service and that there had
been a cohort of people stating their dissatisfaction with this. She added that
much work had been done to rebrand SMART in light of the different nature of services
they were to provide and it was her view that a new side to SMART would be
experienced when the new drop in centre was established. Darren Worthington
added that SMART now provided a range of services for each stage of recovery
and indeed provided services across the Thames Valley region, not just to the
DAAT. Jo Melling confirmed this, adding that although
SMART as an organisation had been established in Oxford 14 years ago, it was
now competing against large national providers at a national level. Moreover,
its processes demonstrated a robust transparency.
At this point the Chairman invited Dr Angela Jones, who had
been a GP working in the Luther Street, Oxford Medical Practice for the
Homeless, during the period when it was a charity until it subsequently became
a PCT provided service, to speak. She made the following points:
·
Prior to when the DRP was set up it had been an ‘old fashioned’
service with providers who were able to meet need in a flexible, rapid way;
·
The DRP was set up in response to an identified
need to address the requirements of a marginalised, core group of insecure
users, a group which, in her view, cost the County, the NHS and the Criminal
Justice System a significant amount of money. The DRP would put service users
on a pathway from use of prescription medication to when they moved on to
County rehabilitation services. She added that she would have liked to see the
service extended to stabilization of the client within the community;
·
The DRP was a very valuable and creative project
in which rough sleepers were given the opportunity to become socially
acclimatized once again by embarking on a structured programme of cooking,
cleaning etc. It had ‘astonishing’ results, clients blossomed, and the DRP
could have filled the Unit many times over;
In response to Dr Jones’ query as
to whether the views of the local GPs had been sought with regard to the new
unit, Jo Melling responded that they had not asked
every City GP, but consultation took place on a regular basis with GPs via the GP
Forums which met on a bi-annual basis. Glenda Daniels added that service users
were given a structured, hour long interview in which they were asked their
thoughts about every service. There was also a county-wide piece of research undertaken each year. She added that this
work had proved very valuable in for her
in her role as a member of the commissioning group for the DAAT.
Dr McWilliam
expressed concern about seeing a service reduction for people suffering from
substantial social problems, due to budgetary problems . He asked Dr Jones her
view, in her capacity as a national expert. On the new tender plans. Dr Jones
responded that she had not seen them and indeed did not now have the local
knowledge with which to do so. She advised that the views of the clinicians
working in the City be sought, particularly of those working directly with
Members of the Committee asked a
number of questions of the panel of invitees, a selection of which are included
below:
Q Will
the plans still include the service for rough sleepers so valued by Dr Jones?
R( Jo Melling)
Yes. It will take complex cases who
will require long term detox programmes. However, it will be directed at users from
the whole county, not simply for rough sleepers.
Q When
you consult, do you involve the families of service users’? Some may not be the
best position to comment themselves.
R (Jo
Melling) We
haven’t in the past engaged families as well as we could have. We are committed
to engaging the service users’ stakeholders. We do have a Family Support
service and this will be addressed this year.
Q Could
you give us an idea of the long term success rate for the project? How much
does it cost the tax payer and does it bring value for money? So far we have only referred to drugs, is
there a danger that there is too much focus on drugs and too little on
treatment for alcohol abuse?
R (Jo
Melling) The cost of the DAAT overall is £7m and the
PCT contributes on a local basis. We retain over 70% of people entering
treatment over a 12 month period. Our
national database indicates that Oxfordshire is currently ranked fifth in the
country for treatment effectiveness, which is a service this county can be
proud of. We do provide a service for
those suffering from alcohol abuse but it is
very much a ‘poor relation’. Many drug users have alcohol problems also.
We do, however hope to develop a service .
The DAAT is trying to drive forward the community safety aspects of alcohol
abuse.
Q Would
it be possible to use the new unit for income generation?
R (Jo Melling)
This cannot be ruled out and could be considered when we have the building
specification.
Q When
will the new service be begin operating?
R (Darren
Worthington) We have begun negotiations with a landlord on the Iffley Road, Oxford and we are very shortly to start
discussions with the local council with regard to planning permission. We
estimate that it will open in late summer 2010.
Jo Melling
commented that the search for premised had been wider than just Oxford City.
Q Will
it have 8 beds?
R (Darren
Worthington) We are looking to it operating with 10 beds. There will be a
dedicated nurse working at the unit.
Q What
lessons have the PCT/DAAT learned from
this? Does the LINk have good cause for concern?
R (Alan
Webb) We need to look at the communications issues across all parties with
regard to when a service is to be re-provided and/or when there is a service
break. He expressed his confidence that there were no governmental issues, as
he chaired the DAAT. He added that, although there were lessons to be learned,
the DAAT had an excellent track record and this should be kept in focus. The
PCT were anxious to ensure that service users were not compromised in any way
with the new service.
Richard Lohman
was invited to give a response to the debate on behalf of the LINk DRP Group. He put forward the following comments:
·
In terms of value for money, a review of the
former DRP undertaken in 2005 stated that nowhere in the country could one find
a better cost per unit. The unit was exceptionally good value for money;
·
The National Treatment Agency for Substance
Misuse (NTA) carried out an audit of 22 outcomes and found that 10 out of the
22 were not auditable. It is difficult to assess where a person is in terms of
whether they have become a productive member of society within a 2 year period;
·
Interviews carried out with some service users
have echoed the statements given by Glenda Daniels and Daniel Worthington that
SMART was now able to offer a much broader service;
·
Dr Andrew McBride had confirmed that unless
money was earmarked for detox provision for rough
sleepers, the provision offered would be unworkable. Darren Worthington, who
has worked closely with the DRP Project Group, is very optimistic that the new
service will cater for this treatment group by redirecting funding from
elsewhere;
·
The LINk had
experienced some difficulties in extracting information from the Supporting
People Team.
It was AGREED to:
(a)
Thank the Oxfordshire LINk
for their report;
(b)
Request Mr Edwards to write to Oxfordshire PCT
and the DAAT giving the Committee’s view that the DRP should be re-provided as
soon as possible and that the services should be at least to the standard of
those that were provided formerly, particularly the ‘base’ level services
offered to people prior to entry to rehabilitation;
(c)
Any planning or nursing issues that would be
likely to halt or delay re-provision, be reported to this Committee at the
earliest possible moment;
(d)
Oxfordshire PCT be reminded of the importance of
consulting with this Committee should there be any change for service users;
and
(e)
The Oxfordshire Supporting People Team,
Oxfordshire PCT and the DAAT be reminded of their duty to respond to requests
for information from the Oxfordshire LINk.
Supporting documents: