Agenda item

[This report provides Scrutiny Panel with an update on the work carried out with residents and their families of Duke Street residential care home.] 

Kathy Roper, Head of Commissioning All Age Disability, provided a report to inform the Scrutiny Panel of progress on the work carried out with residents and their families of Duke Street residential care home.

The Head of Commissioning advised that the report set out the costed care options appraisal for Duke Street if it was to be de-registered as a residential care home and re-registered as a supported living service. She advised that the social landlord model was not a new concept, that it would provide a better quality of life in supported living and that it was important for the staffing to remain the same to ensure the residents remain settled in their homes.

She informed the Panel that TUPE arrangements for staff were  being considered to ensure a level of consistency for residents and that a lot of time has been invested with families and carers to reduce anxiety about the level of service and care for their relatives.

There followed a discussion about the risks highlighted in the options outlined in the report relating to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (Dols), Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection and the revised cost model.  The Service Director responded to the question ‘what happens if the family does not agree with the Dols and there is a legal challenge?’ He advised that the Dols does exactly what it says; there is a requirement on all people that work for the State to have proper authority; it does not take away autonomy; there is a right to restrict an individual to a living area; it is intended to protect the safety and security of the individual, but only to do the minimum.  The Head of Commissioning advised that most residents in Duke Street do not have the ability to make their own decision and that staff bring together families, carers, social workers and any other appropriate person to discuss safeguarding the individual without deprivation of liberty.

In response to further questions the Head of Commissioning advised that because de-registering and re-registering is taking place the individual still has tenure of place. She clarified that even if the family objects on behalf of the individual if a best interest decision considers that Duke Street is the best place for an individual to live they will be able to stay there.

Cllr Lynne Moran asked what the difference would be in terms of finance between supported living and re-registered care home. The Head of Commissioning advised that the individual would be able to receive housing benefits, approximately £133 per week and a range of other benefits.  She advised that this would not cover all costs and that the Council will have a duty of care for the individual.

Cllr Lynne Moran asked what the TUPE arrangements time period would be.  The Head of Commissioning advised that it would be a twelve month period and that there would initially be a three month stand still period to determine if the employee wanted to move or not.

In response to a question from Cllr Paula Brookfield, Chair relating to the potential cost of a revamp at Duke Street the Head of Commissioning confirmed that the cost of revamp would not fall on the Council, but to the housing association.

Resolved:

1.    That the Scrutiny Panel endorse the implementation of option 2, to de-register Duke Street bungalows as residential care and to change the registration to supported living with the potential of Wolverhampton Homes becoming landlord subject to further work and discussions taking place and the Council commissioning an alternative provider to deliver the care element. A period of TUPE would apply to this option.

2.    That Scrutiny Panel note the indicative timelines to complete the work to move to a supported living service and maximise potential savings.