Agenda item

To consider information from the following in relation to this scrutiny topic:

·       Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise (VCSE) Sector (via Catalyst)

·       Service-user / family / carer feedback

·       Other Local Authority approaches / good practice regarding reablement

Councillor Marc Besford wished it to be recorded for transparency purposes only that he was an employee of Catalyst.

The fifth evidence-gathering session for the Committee’s ongoing review of Reablement Service considered a submission from the voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) sector, feedback from those who had used local reablement provision, and examples of reablement activity / thinking from beyond Stockton-on-Tees.

VCSE SECTOR (VIA CATALYST)

Representatives from Catalyst (a strategic infrastructure organisation for Stockton-on-Tees which offered a range of specialist support, strategic operations, and a commitment to push forward the conditions in which its VCSE colleagues operated) were asked to collate views from the sector in response to the Committee’s lines of enquiry.  Catalyst’s Chief Executive, supported by a Project Co-ordinator, gave a presentation which focused on the following:

·         Current VCSE Support: There were no specific reablement services currently being delivered by VCSE organisations, nor was there a large quantity of reablement-related activity happening across the Borough within this sector.  When asked, Catalyst recommended services such as Age UK, Mind, and Heart Support (exercise classes), and also had a good relationship with those leading the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust (NTHFT) ‘Home But Not Alone’ initiative (a volunteer service offering time-limited support following discharge from hospital).  The former Five Lamps ‘Home from Hospital’ service was another relevant offer in relation to this scrutiny topic, though this ended in March 2024.

·         Barriers: People may be unaware / uncertain about what the term ‘reablement’ was / meant, whilst VCSE organisations considering the provision of / supporting such a service needed to have the required capacity to meet demand and full cost-recovery funding (ensuring a good quality and sustainable offer).  From a sector perspective, perceptions that VCSE involvement was free or cheap should be addressed (i.e. paid staff were required to recruit volunteers, with incentives for the latter also a factor for consideration), and there was a general lack of awareness / information-sharing on the services available (or, indeed, what was no longer on offer).

·         How can we help you help residents?: Addressing barriers would enable the VCSE sector to be well placed to support Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (SBC) with the delivery of local reablement services.  VCSE organisations were able to bridge gaps in statutory care (working flexibly without being bogged down with bureaucracy), and there was the potential for a Community Navigator role which linked up the broad range of services that existed to make it easier for families to identify possible support (this had already been discussed with SBC and the North East and North Cumbria Integrated Care Board (NENC ICB) – the Wellbeing Hub in Wellington Square, Stockton being a possible base).  The sector also had volunteer networks (supported by a Stockton-on-Tees Volunteers website), and Catalyst worked in partnership with SBC (and with input and support of the VCSE sector) to develop a new Volunteering Strategy for Stockton-on-Tees (this needed renewing in 2026).  Catalyst was trying to secure funding for strategic oversight of volunteering – this would help nurture a culture of volunteering across the Borough.

·         Home from Hospital: This Five Lamps initiative previously supported people in their own homes following a discharge from hospital and provided financial savings to the NHS due to lower re-admissions.  Trusted relationships were built as a result of the same staff member visiting a particular individual, and the service was believed to be the only one which assisted in facilitating access to group activities.  A significant amount of positive feedback was received about this offer, with a sense that its cessation had meant there was now a gap within the community for such provision.

·         A mutually beneficial relationship: Maintaining their already close partnership across a vast range of issues, SBC and the VCSE sector would continue to help each other in making the Borough a better place.  VCSE organisations needed to demonstrate what they could bring to the table, and their support would be aided by the removal of barriers, tackling unrealistic expectations, and the identification of common purposes and mutual outcomes.

Giving thanks for the information provided and praising the sector for what it did within the Borough, the Committee asked how volunteers were sourced.  Methods highlighted included the Stockton-on-Tees Volunteers website (VCSE organisations were encouraged to upload relevant details), Catalyst attendance at community events (e.g. Eid Fusion), and the Catalyst Project Co-ordinator’s role involving engagement with businesses to encourage volunteering.  Stressing the benefits of volunteering for both the individual as well as the people they were helping was important, and there was a developing focus on opportunities for young people to offer their time (something which could assist with career development, university applications, etc.).

Agreeing that the term ‘reablement’ was not helpful in providing clarity of purpose, the Committee pointed to the recent expansion of the SBC Reablement Service following the cessation of the Five Lamps Home from Hospital contract.  Given the Council provided investment towards Catalyst, Members expressed surprise that there seemed to be an absence of strategic oversight between the VCSE sector and SBC when it came to the local reablement offer (prompting the impression that these two entities were working in isolation), and queried whether hospitals and the SBC Reablement Service had a main contact for the sector regarding help at home (and vice-versa).  Catalyst gave assurance that it had wide links with partner organisations within the Borough, as well as an overview of the available support across the VCSE sector (though acknowledged that not all VCSE organisations chose to engage with Catalyst).  SBC officers in attendance added that the ‘Communities’ workstream of the Council’s Powering Our Future initiative was involved in the refresh of the Volunteering Strategy for Stockton-on-Tees, and the SBC Community Engagement Team had links to VCSE support.  The SBC Reablement Service was encouraged to look at the Stockton Information Directory (SID) to identify VCSE organisations which could provide any relevant assistance for individuals – if nothing was available, this would be escalated to SBC Service Managers.  The Committee reiterated the need to establish person-to-person links between SBC, local hospitals and Catalyst.

Welcoming the growth of the SBC Reablement Service, the Committee stated that a number of people required help (often very individualised) beyond the six-week period which the service provided.  Whilst funding was always useful, Members felt that support options already existed and could be facilitated via improvements to communication mechanisms between local organisations.

The Committee asked if information on VCSE services was available within public places (e.g. GP surgeries, libraries, etc).  Catalyst confirmed that there was some literature / publicity out in the community, and also noted previous discussions on directing everything through SID – however, gaps existed, and there was work to do on the public’s ability to find relevant information in an efficient way.  Members drew attention to the issue of leaflets becoming dated and not being replaced, as well as the fact that people requiring reablement-related services were more likely to be elderly and may not be as digitally literate.  SBC officers acknowledged the need to be more creative in targeting the promotion of existing offers (another element which was being addressed by the SBC Powering Our Future ‘Communities’ workstream) – Catalyst also noted previous reluctance for some settings (including libraries) to put up posters due to perceived ‘clutter’.

CUSTOMER FEEDBACK

The SBC Adults, Health and Wellbeing directorate was asked to collate views from service-users / families / carers and provide this for the Committee.  A presentation was given by the SBC Integrated Early Intervention & Prevention Service Manager which included:

·         How, When and Who?: Reablement had a standard survey that included several set questions and free text boxes to solicit feedback on the service they had received.  Guided by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) Assurance Framework, SBC Adult Social Care had updated the questionnaire for 2024-2025 (only two questions from 2023-2024 remained the same).  Surveys were issued to all people who had accessed support (from the Reablement Service team and the provision at Rosedale) once the intervention was complete.

·         Q3 23/24 & 24/25 Comparator: Noting that around 80-90% of referrals came directly from hospitals (with the rest from the community), data indicated that there had been a large increase in the number of people who had not received (or could not remember receiving) any written information about the SBC Reablement Service before they accessed this support when comparing the same Q3 period from 2023-2024 to 2024-2025.  There had, however, been a bigger rise in the number of people who felt ‘very or quite satisfied’ with the level of support they received from reablement staff between the same period.

·         Q3 2024/25 Performance: The majority of survey respondents felt they had been ‘very much’ involved in, and had enough chance to influence, the way in which their care was organised (a small minority had answered ‘not at all / cannot remember’).  Almost all felt the support they received had contributed to making them feel safe, were ‘happy’ that the outcome of the support they received had met their expectations, and that their overall wellbeing had ‘improved a lot’ because of the support they had received.

·         Commendations and comments: In Q3 (2024-2025), Reablement had received 56 compliments from people accessing the service.  There were no known formal complaints being considered at present.

The Committee highlighted the apparent lack of awareness of the local reablement offer (a theme emerging during the course of this review) and emphasised the need for a more understandable term which gave clarity over what this type of service sought to achieve.  SBC officers noted that statutory guidance restricted the language used in relation to this form of support, though the possibility of adapting terminology for the general public (which may differ from that used between reablement staff and other professionals) was raised.  To address a gap in public knowledge, new leaflets had recently been produced, and the Council could reflect on the Committee’s recommendations in relation to this review for future productions.  It was also stated that the SBC ‘reablement’ webpage did have an explainer on it which described what the service involved and aimed to do.

With reference to the provision at Rosedale, the Committee drew attention to the worries of those leaving that setting about going into a care home.  There was a need to reassure the public on what support was available within their own home – partnership-working was key in this regard.

OTHER APPROACHES / GOOD PRACTICE

Further to the developments involving the current reablement service in County Durham which were relayed at the last Committee meeting in January 2025, other examples of reablement-related activity / thinking outside Stockton-on-Tees were relayed as follows:

·         VCSE-related: Greater Manchester VCSE ‘Home from Hospital’ Programme.

·         Scrutiny-related: Reviews involving Islington, Leicester, and Brent Councils.

·         Technology-related: How technology can help support community reablement services, and a care management solution for such provision.

·         Other: Healthwatch Stoke-on-Trent involvement in reviewing and modernising local reablement services, and an article highlighting examples of models to facilitate a shift to more support in communities.

In addition, the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) launched a new practical resource on 10 September 2024 to support reablement services in delivering better outcomes for people who needed reablement support, their families and social care staff.  A webinar (‘Helping reablement services boost user engagement and patient outcomes’) was also held on 10 September 2024 which spoke to this resource, the research that underpinned it, and the key recommendations that could help to make a difference (the link was provided).

Referencing the Committee’s previous evidence-gathering session in January 2025, Members expressed their desire to see whether the full findings of Peopletoo (commissioned by SBC to assist the Council in assessing the impact of current ways of working and analyse the best model for continuing to support people to maximise their independence) were consistent with the results of the CQC inspection of SBC Adult Social Care services which took place in late-2024.  SBC officers would seek confirmation after this meeting as to when this information (both Peopletoo and the CQC feedback) was likely to be available.

SCOPE AND PROJECT PLAN

As this meeting involved the final formal evidence-gathering session for the review of Reablement Service, a summary of all the information received thus far would be collated and presented to the next Committee meeting in March 2025 (where Members would also discuss and agree draft recommendations) – this would include feedback from the SBC Reablement Service staff survey which had recently closed (25 responses had been received to date).

AGREED that:

1)    the information presented by Catalyst and the SBC Adults, Health and Wellbeing directorate (as well as the examples of reablement-related approaches / practice outside the Borough) be noted.

2)    timelines around the publication of reports for both the Peopletoo review of local reablement provision and the CQC inspection of SBC Adult Social Care be clarified.