The Committee received a presentation from the
Occupational Therapy (OT) Team Manager. The presentation
covered:
- SBC OT Service overview and missions
statement
- Legal Duties
- OT provisions and process
- The impact on health and wellbeing
and measuring success
- Effects of long waiting lists and
non-provision, including the financial impact
- Demand on service
Key issues discussed included:
- The OT assessments mainly took place
in a person’s home, although they could take place in
residential care setting, day care settings and local prison
too.
- Comparisons from before and after
the person came to the OT service were made to measure the impact
of OT interventions on their personalised outcomes.
- Reduction in the cost of the care
package was being achieved by in-depth review of such care packages
by the OT assessor. However, the main objective of undertaking a
review of the care package was to make this personalised and less
intrusive e.g. tailored to the individual.
- The OT service worked with Tees
Valley Home Finder and Registered Housing Providers to ensure those
on the housing register were applying for housing that met their
needs. A long term implication of non or delay in provision of
DFG’s included the need for re-housing and the shortage of
housing and difficulty in finding suitable properties for a persons
need was noted.
- Members questioned whether,
following an extension built via DFG, a person could apply again
for another DFG if their family expanded, or they moved properties.
Officers explained that the design of extensions and/or adaptations
had to meet the need of the person and
they could apply again if their needs changed.
- It was questioned whether
arrangements were in place to return small items people may require
on short term basis such as crutches, and while this was not the
responsibility of officers at the meeting they were aware that
there was a system in place for returning these.
- Discussion took place regarding the
design of new housing and ensuring that these were built to meet
the needs of older people, which would ensure they did not require
as many adaptations in future. It was noted that this would be a
planning issue and changes would have to
be made with the planning process. However, there were regulations
regarding the placing of plug sockets and door widths.
- It was noted that the OT would put
short term measures in place immediately to assist the person while
there were awaiting a DFG.
- Members questioned the reason for
the increase in demand for OT services and informed that the team
had improved how they promoted their services and became more
accessible. Additionally, they had built good working relationships
with Tees Valley Homefinder, Thirteen, and care services therefore
received more referrals.
- The financial impact for waiting for
adaptation was noted, and Officers explained that the cost for a
day in hospital was approximate. It was questioned why someone
would spend one day in hospital and explained that this would be an
extra day stay in hospital which may be caused by a delay in
discharge due to the adaptations needed not being in place.
The Committee also received a presentation
from the Building Service Manager. The presentation covered:
- Team overview
- Number of DFGs completed and cost
from 2020-2021 – to date
- Process overview
- Average timeline
- Customer journey and communication
with the customer
- Impact of fast track
applications
- Feedback and aftercare
- Appointing contractors and
supply/purchasing of adaptations/stock
- Challenges
Key issues discussed included:
- The team installed three wet rooms a
week, which took five days each. Between April - September 2024
they had carried out 63 wet rooms The
client was given plenty of notice so that they could arrange
alternative washing facilities or accommodation while the work was
being carried out. No works were carried out for a three week
period over Christmas, as they found that clients did not want them
in their homes over the Christmas period and this gave staff the
opportunity for a break. The team were operating with less staff
than previously, and this had an affect
on how many wet rooms they could install due to staff holidays and
sickness. It was explained that it was a very skilled team and
therefore the manager could not task operatives from other areas to
assist. This then impacted on the waiting list. It was questioned
what the multi-skilled operatives base trade was, and officers
informed that the base trade was plumbing, however they were
trained in several other trades but not electrics.
- Members questioned how often bulk
buy suppliers were reviewed and where informed that this was
carried out every three months. This allowed for officers to create
good professional relationships with suppliers which also helped to
drive down costs. Storage for bulk purchasing was also discussed,
and the impact of fast track applications on this, with members
questioning if more storage could be found if needed. There was
storage for 4 weeks’ worth of stock and the service only bulk
purchased items that did not deteriorate quickly. Certain items
also changed dependent on the need of the client therefore these
were purchased in smaller numbers.
- Registered Housing Providers were
raised, and it was explained that their tenants had the same rights
to access the funding as non-RP tenants. It was noted that Thirteen
used to have their own inhouse service but no longer operated this
and referred their to tenants SBC’s DFG service.
Officers suggested the reasons for this included the good quality
SBC provided along with claiming they did not have the funding.
Approximately 50% of the properties the team carried out works on
were private properties and 50% Registered Housing Provider
properties. Officers also noted that Thirteen made contributions
toward some adaptations needed in their properties, but not
all.
- Asbestos surveys, which delayed when
the works could be carried out, were raised with members
questioning if they checked every home for this. The officer
informed that if they were carrying out intrusive work on a home
built prior to 1999 they would check it for asbestos. They would
carry out scrapes as part of the pre-work, which included checking
where wiring and pipes were needed, ready for the asbestos report.
Thirteen carried out their own asbestos reports but there were no
issues with the waiting time for those surveys.
In addition, the link officer noted that the
current wait for a DFG was 135 days, and it was taking 143 days to
complete on a DFG, which was under the government target of 150
days.
AGREED that the information be noted.