A Review for the Supporting People Team – an example
Following a service review a Supporting People Team wished
to de-commission a service provided by a private landlord.
The action plan recommended by the Team had not been followed
through by the provider. However, there was a need to assess
all of the current clients in order to decide whether or not
there was a need to find alternative floating support or whether
in fact some floating support could be reduced and the clients
moved to independence.
The Housing & Support Partnership provided a consultant
to assess those tenants who were willing to meet and discuss
their housing and support needs. Interviews were made as informal
as possible and questions were open ended about the tenant,
how they lived and how they view their support needs.
The service was offering minimal levels of support at best,
to people who were mostly managing their own tenancies although
tenants reported about the landlord services received. One
or two people who did require support and most of these needs
have been addressed by the Supporting People team. The cost
of the review was modest, the savings quite significant. How
many other services are there nationally using the scarce
resources of Supporting People but not doing the job.? It
appears to justify very well the value of commissioning this
kind of independent review.
Help for the Provider – an example
An SP service review of a service for people with learning
disabilities proceeded through all its stages until, to the
shock of the provider, a proposal to decommission was received.
The Housing and Support Partnership were asked for advice.
From the paperwork it appeared that there was a need for
improvements but the review failed to follow its own procedures.
An appropriate recommendation to the Commissioning Body according
to the review procedures would have been an action plan or
remodelling meeting the concerns set out in the report.
There were extremely positive reports from stakeholders about
the quality of service and commitment of the provider. Care
managers, housing association partners, the Commission for
Social Care Inspection and Audit Commission had given very
favourable report.
The failure to communicate evidence of weaknesses or recommend
performance improvement meant the provider had been given
little chance to respond positively or remedy problems. It
was decided that rather than challenge a decision through
an Appeal Process or other legal remedy it would be more appropriate
to try and agree with the Supporting People Team the changes
or improvements needed and give a timetable for their achievement.
An action plan was agreed with the Team to covering the QAF
standards and the hourly rate and the Commissioning Body agreed
to a renewed contract. |
