Transcript Document
Practical Delivery of the Accommodation Strategy KHG OP Day 22 October 2014 Christy Holden – Head of Commissioning (Accommodation) Kent County Council Why we need an Accommodation Strategy • KCC spends £180m on residential and nursing care • The right type of accommodation in the right place • Stimulate the market or directly intervene • Inform planning applications • Secure better outcomes and make savings • Quality and safeguarding Development of the Strategy • Joint KCC, NHS and KHG document supported by KPOG and the DH Housing LIN • Analysis of KCC case load, placement patterns, availability of services • Engaged with local teams, CCG’s, District Councils in its development • Formal approval and launch in July 2014 The Accommodation Strategy www.kent.gov.uk About the Council Strategies and Policies Adult Social Care Policies Accommodation Strategy www.kent.gov.uk/accommodationstrategy Accommodation Strategy Overview • • • • • • • • Dynamic strategy On-line with links Evidence Base Case studies Maps Design Principles District Profiles Key findings by user group • Financial Impact • District aligned with CCG Consideration Accommodation for Older People Analysis Service Type National Ratio Kent Ratio Sheltered 125 units per 1000 pop 75+ 144 Extra Care 45 units per 1000 pop 75+ 1.51 Residential Care 65 units per 1000 pop 75+ 65.7 Nursing Care 45 units per 1000 pop 75+ 30 Intermediate Care 26.3 units per 100,000 pop 29.7 Future need? • National Ratios • Population forecast • Impact of enhanced community provision • Placement patterns • Market appraisal • Workshops with KCC,CCGs and Districts Numbers are indicative and will be used to target priority areas. Numbers will need to be periodically reviewed and adjusted in line with the performance of enhanced community services District Profiles Older People Summary OP +/R +43 N -111 EC +197 SH 0 OP R N EC SH +/+5 +150 +112 0 OP R N EC SH OP R N EC SH +/-48 +108 +161 0 % increase by 2021: Accommodation units = 6% Older People 85+ = 30% OP EXISTING 2021 R N EC SH +/- 8200 5730 -2470 3730 5661 +1931 490 3032 +2542 17950 17706 -244 30370 32129 +1759 +/-96 +90 +114 0 Known 70 170 946 0 1186 KCC fund: 37% of placements OP R N EC SH OP +/R -128 N +18 EC +166 SH 0 +/-133 +52 +120 0 OP R N EC SH +/-281 +254 +230 -87 Shift to Extra Care Housing could reduce KCC revenue costs by £6m by 2021 More Nursing Care OP R N EC SH +/-94 +270 +416 -36 Fit for Purpose Modern Accommodation R = Residential incl. Dementia N – Nursing incl. Dementia EC = Extra Care SH = Sheltered Housing Vacancy Rate: National = 7% Kent = 3% OP R N EC SH +/-439 +264 +183 -96 Positive impact on Kent Economy OP +/R -360 N +195 EC +234 SH 0 OP R N EC SH +/-621 +344 +278 0 OP R N EC SH +/-318 +297 +331 -25 334 care homes Average Size: New build = 57 beds Kent = 35 beds West Kent = 40 beds East Kent = 32 beds Opportunity Areas – Acute Acute Demand Opportunity to support more individuals at home Actions: • Data capture in place to review decision making process in acute hospitals • Development of menu of service in one hospital • Data capture in place to review performance of STB outcomes • Review assessment process for STB assessments • Plan for roll out across all hospitals £4.1M - £7.6M through improved short term pathways © Newton Europe Limited. All Rights The number of services users receiving long term residential care as a result of the short term pathway could be reduced by 13% Was Residential Appropriate? Source: BICA Study 40% In 11% of cases residential was deemed appropriate 35% 30% © Newton Europe Limited. All Rights Reserved 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Pathway resulted in Incorrect Decision residential placement (Unintended/Incorrect decisions) Pressure from family/ friend Meet Housing Need Review1 Residential was appropriate Review2 Risk Adverse No clear goals Short Term Bed Usage - Review Outcomes Yes –61% STB Required No – 39% 20 18 39% © Newton Europe Limited. All Rights 16 14 Users 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 STB not required OT Home Ax. Residential was appropriate MCA Night time Needs Carer's Ax. Declutter home Falls Ax. Mobility PT Ax. Comparison of Preference for Long Term Care 40% 40% 35% 35% 30% 30% Rehab Home Ideal outcome Unsafe at Home Reluctant Agree to STB Enablement/ meals Enablement Housing Resi With Family (Resi) Unsafe at Home Increase independence 0% (blank) 0% MCA 5% Supported living 5% Unable to say 10% Agree to STB 10% STB 15% None 15% Supported living 20% None 20% 25% STB 25% Residential %age of cases 45% Family & friends request residential or STB 77% vs 9% service user requests. What factors lead to this decision being made by the family? © Newton Europe Limited. All Rights Family/Friends Preferred Outcome 45% Home %age of cases User Preferred Outcome Source: BICA Study Comments from Friends / Family Concerns regarding safety Family feel he will be unsafe living at home alone [NAME] is at great risk if she is to return to home Alternatives to STB : Enablement / Increase care packages / telecare Concerns regarding carer’s ability to cope Family have stated that they are struggling to support [NAME] recently Wife feels unable to cope any longer at home. Son who states that he feels he cannot manage his fathers needs, and that 24hr care is needed Alternatives to STB : Carer support / respite care / carer assessments Concerns influence outcome with no evidence of alternatives being discussed © Newton Europe Limited. All Rights Family are concerned about [NAME] discharge home and her ability to manage at home What Causes Lead to Residential Placement? Source: Panel Jan-May 2014 and PSSRU 35% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Informal care breakdown Psycho-social vulnerability Cognitive / behavioural needs Falls risk Nursing / medical needs Mobility needs Unidentified Results based on initial study 43 residential placement cases reviewed by Panel Jan-May 2014 match PSSRU study results Informal care breakdown, psycho-social vulnerability & cognitive / behavioural needs consistently top 3 reasons given for placement How could we work with the voluntary sector and others to prevent these causes? © Newton Europe Limited. All Rights % of Sample Cases 30% Older People Summary OP +/R +43 N -111 EC +197 SH 0 OP R N EC SH +/+5 +150 +112 0 OP R N EC SH OP R N EC SH +/-48 +108 +161 0 Are housing providers supported in the care needs of their tenants? OP EXISTING 2021 R N EC SH +/- 8200 5730 -2470 3730 5661 +1931 490 3032 +2542 17950 17706 -244 30370 32129 +1759 +/-96 +90 +114 0 Investment in Enablement, Short term interventions and 24/7 home care OP R N EC SH OP +/R -128 N +18 EC +166 SH 0 +/-133 +52 +120 0 OP R N EC SH +/-281 +254 +230 -87 Reduce 2470 residential beds across the County All tenure considered; keep people in their own home Who are we targeting for extra care housing? OP R N EC SH +/-94 +270 +416 -36 Known 70 170 946 0 1186 R = Residential incl. Dementia N – Nursing incl. Dementia EC = Extra Care SH = Sheltered Housing CCG’s investing in enhanced community provision – varied across the County OP R N EC SH +/-439 +264 +183 -96 OP +/R -360 N +195 EC +234 SH 0 OP R N EC SH +/-621 +344 +278 0 OP R N EC SH +/-318 +297 +331 -25 334 care homes Delivery • Step One: Establish Priority list based on Need, Opportunity and Stakeholder desire • Step Two: Agree Priority list through KCC’s Transformation Board • Step Three: Prepare Market Position Statements and publish on the Kent Business Portal • Step Four: Meet with providers or developers that wish to develop services in that area, scope all opportunities • Step Five: Undertake business cases where investment is required • Step Six: Issue any formal procurement opportunities and develop legal agreements where required Timetable • Project and Resource planning by December 2014 • Market Position Statements/Locality Focus Schedules to be issued from October 2014 • Undertake full analysis for people with learning disabilities, people with physical disabilities and people with mental health needs – underway for LD, to start in the new year for PD and MH King Edward Court ,Herne Bay Questions Christy Holden, Head of Commissioning – Accommodation [email protected] – 07920 780623