source social care consultation report · data provision (questions 5 – question 7) questions 5-7...

Information Services Division

A Management Information publication for Scotland

SOURCE Social Care

Consultation Report

April 2018


1

Contents

Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2

Section 1 – Online Survey Responses ..................................................................................... 3

Respondent Demographics (Questions 1- Question 4) ........................................................ 4

Data Provision (Question 5 – Question 7) ............................................................................ 5

Home Care, Self-Directed Support and Community Alarms (Question 8 – Question 14) ..... 7

Source Dataset Proposal (Questions 15 - Question 17) ..................................................... 11

Affect of respondents role and rating .................................................................................. 12

Section 2 ................................................................................................................................ 13

Feedback from consultation sessions ................................................................................. 13

General themes .................................................................................................................. 16

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 18

Dataset ............................................................................................................................... 18

Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 23

Appendix 1 – Consultation on Social Care data collection ................................................. 23

Appendix 2 – Online consultation survey free text responses ............................................ 37

Appendix 3 – Summary Source Social Care Dataset ......................................................... 58

Appendix 4– Codes and Values ......................................................................................... 60


2

Introduction ISD and the Scottish Government plan to merge the Scottish Government Social Care Survey and the Source Social Care data collection into one data collection. The Source social care approach of data collection will be the single solution to meet both needs in the future. A joint team of Scottish Government and ISD staff have consulted on a provisional dataset through face to face and WebEx consultations across Scotland and also through the issue of an online consultation. This document presents the responses and feedback of the full consultation process.

Section 1 presents a summary of the online survey responses to the proposed revised source social care dataset. All free text comments submitted have been anonymised (where required) and are listed in Appendix 2.

Section 2 presents a summary of the feedback from the face-to-face and WebEx sessions held in Edinburgh and Glasgow throughout November 2017.

Both sections should be read in full to understand the overall thoughts, opinions and concerns raised by all participants involved in the consultation. These range from specific questions pertaining to the dataset to operational questions such as the time required to undertake data collection, resources and frequency of submissions.

The conclusion brings both sections together and summarises what actions have been /will be taken by the project team in response.


3

Section 1 – Online Survey Responses

The revised Source social care dataset will be split into 6 sections:

Section 1 – Demographics

Section 2 – Client information

Section 3 – Self directed support

Section 4 – Home care, Reablement and IoRN

Section 5 – Community Alarms and Telecare

Section 6 – Care Homes

The online survey concentrated on proposed changes to the existing Source collection, in particular changes made to Sections 2 to 5 of the data collection. There were also specific questions relating to data provision and whether the data collection met the respondent’s needs.

The survey was sent to a number of different contacts including data providers, key partners, and internal/external stakeholders/customers. The survey was also made available on the ISD website for completeness. The survey went live on the 28 November 2017 and responses were accepted up to 10 January 2018. Within the communication about the survey sent to our contacts, a word document of the consultation was issued and responses returned in the word document were also accepted to ensure as many responses as possible were captured. The full list of consultation questions is available in Appendix 1. The responses are summarised in this section of the report however for full transparency Appendix 2 lists the free text responses - available for each question. Where required these have been anonymised.


4

Respondent Demographics (Questions 1- Question 4)

Twenty four responses were received to the online survey as at 10th January 2018. 87.5% (21 responses) of these were on behalf of an organisation and 12.5% (3 responses) were on an individual basis (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Respondents by whom responding on behalf of

Figure 2 shows the percentage of responses by organisation type. The chart shows that 62.5% of respondents were from a health and social care partnership (15 responses), 25.0% from a local authority (6 responses), 8.3% from Scottish Government (2 responses) and 4.2% of respondents were from ISD (1 response).

Figure 2. Respondents by organisation type

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Individual Organisation

% of respondents

Responding on behalf of

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

Health and Social Care Partnership

Local Authority Scottish Government

ISD/LIST analyst

% of respondents

Organisation


5

Table 1 below provides a breakdown of the role of each respondent. However, it should be noted that more than one role could be selected. Therefore, the total of the roles selected does not reflect the total number of respondents.

Table 1. Role of respondent

Role Total selecting this role

Data Provider 21

Manager 11

Commissioner/Planner 4

Policy user 4

Analyst/researcher 11

Data Provision (Questions 5 – Question 7)

Questions 5-7 in the survey asked for information regarding data submissions and only data providers were asked to provide information. In these questions respondents were asked to identify which answer best represented their/their organisation’s opinion from the scale below;

a. Feasible, no issues b. Feasible, but will be challenging c. Not feasible d. Don’t know

In order to summarise responses, ‘a’ and ‘b’ above were coded as positive, ‘c’ negative and ‘d’ as neutral. Twenty-one out of the 24 respondents to the survey were eligible to answer these questions. Table 2 below indicates the conclusions from questions 5-7.

Table 2. Summary or responses to questions 5-7


6

Question 5 asked respondents about how easy they thought it would be for their organisation to return a quarterly submission to ISD. Eighty one percent (17 respondents) thought it would be possible to return quarterly data with 19% (4 responses) staying this was not possible. Of those who thought it was feasible to return data quarterly 94% (16 out of 17) said it was feasible but challenging.

Respondents who suggested returning information quarterly would be b) feasible but challenging or c) not feasible were asked to provide additional feedback in a free text box to help understand the issues. Grouping the responses into categories the results suggest that the main reasons for challenges are workload (35%), timescales (30%) and resource issues (30%).

The Source social care data collection currently only collects information on people aged 18 and over whereas the social care survey collects information on all ages Question 6 asked respondents for feedback on how easy it would be to provide information for people of all ages. 95.2% (20 respondents) thought it would be feasible to return information on clients of all ages with 4.8% (1 response) saying this would not be feasible. Of those who thought it was feasible to collect information on all ages seventy percent (14 out of 20 responses) identified that it would be feasible but challenging.

As for question 5 respondents who said it would be b) feasible but challenging or c) not feasible were asked to provide additional feedback. Grouping the responses into categories the main issues for data suppliers providing information on all ages included; adult and child services are managed across different systems/directorates (36%), workload (21%), time constraints (21%), information provision in relation to children may not be easily comparable/linked to that of Adults/Older people (14%) and the need for a clearer specification of what should be included and excluded (14%).

The scope for the Social Care Survey includes all people who have a social worker or support worker regardless if they are receiving any services. The Source social care data set currently collects information only on people who are receiving particular services. Question 7 asked for feedback on if it is possible to provide data on all people who have a social worker or support worker. 90.5% (19 responses) indicated that that it would be feasible to provide this information. 4.8% (1 response) indicated it was not feasible with the remaining 4.8% didn’t know (1 response). Of those who thought it was feasible to provide the information 63% (13 of 19 responses) identified it would be feasible but challenging to return social work data.

Respondents who reported that it was feasible but challenging or suggested it would not be feasible to return the information were asked to provide more feedback on their concerns. Thirty one percent reported inconsistent guidelines and difficulty knowing what should be included, 23% of respondents identified it was challenging to complete accurately currently due to difficulties in capturing all clients/accessing all the data required and anticipated the same difficulties continuing with the revised data collection. Fifteen percent identified workload as an issue.


7

Home Care, Self-Directed Support and Community Alarms (Questions 8 – Question 14)

The Social Care Survey asks Yes/No questions about Home Care, Self-Directed Support and Community Alarms. The Source social care data collection asks for information for people who receive home care, self directed support and community alarms in separate sections (sections 3 to 5). It is proposed that we will derive a Yes/No response by assuming the response is “No” if no detailed information is provided for a client for that service.

Question 8 sought feedback on whether this proposal to derive a yes/no response would provide a complete record of everyone receiving a service. Results in table 3 below indicate that 52.4% of respondents agree that the proposal (a derived yes/no response) will provide a complete record of everyone receiving a service with 38.1% reporting no and 9.5% unsure.

For those reporting that they did not think that a derived variable would provide a full record of everyone receiving the service (8 respondents) concerns included the following; 50% reported it would be inaccurate to assume a yes/no which could lead to inaccurate results with 25% reporting a ‘don’t know’ option would be more accurate and 13% indicating clearer guidelines would be necessary. It was noted by four respondents that data reported under home care, SDS, meals and community alarms would not show the complete picture because the client may receive these services without the Local Authorities knowledge (e.g. organised by private company and paid for through Direct payment, or data is captured by a private company).

Table 3. Do you agree that the proposal to derive yes/no variables for some services1 will provide a complete record of everyone receiving that service?

Response Number of respondents

Percentage

Yes 11 52.4

No 8 38.1

Don’t know 2 9.5

1. Services to be derived are Home Care, Self-Directed Support and Community Alarms.

Client Group

Question 9 asked respondents about the feasibility of adding neurological conditions as a new category to client group. Responses outlined in Table 4 below indicate that 26.3% (5 respondents) think it would be possible to return this data for financial year 2017-18 with 42.1% (8 respondents) reporting this would be more feasible for 2018-19 and 31.6% (6 respondents) reporting other.


8

Table 4. When do you envisage being able to implement the new code (neurological conditions) to the client group?


Percentage

For the 2017-18 return 5 26.3

For the 2018-19 financial year 8 42.1

Other 6 31.6

The free text option for the “other” category indicates that timescales are an issue in relation to updating systems as some are not designed to record this (66% of respondents). Additionally, resource was an issue identified to back date records with this information (33% respondents) but that new guidelines could be implemented moving forward to 2018-19. The remaining 22.2% of respondents reported ‘don’t know’ to this question.

Self directed support - Gross and Net Budget.

The Social Care Survey required Gross budget as a measure of need. By contrast the Source social care data collection collected information on Net budget. This was intended to align with the historically published Net health service expenditure and thus enabling compatibility when using linked health and social care expenditure analysis at client level.

To meet the varying requirements of all data users it was proposed that the new Source Social Care dataset from 2017-18 requests information about both Gross and Net budget.

Question 10 in the survey asked if respondents agreed with this proposal. Table 5 below highlights that one third (8 respondents) agree with the proposal to collect both net and gross budget with a further third not agreeing to the proposal. The remaining third returned a 'don’t know' response.

Table 5. Do you agree with the proposal to extend the social care dataset to collect both New and Gross budget?


Percentage

Yes 8 33.3

No 8 33.3

Don’t know 8 33.3

Those that did not agree with the proposal to collect gross and net costs were asked to explain why they did not agree with the proposal. Twenty-five percent identified they would have issues supplying Gross cost with 12.5% identifying issues supplying Net information. Twenty five percent also indicated discussions with finance were necessary and 25% questioned the usefulness of this information at a person level.


9

Community Alarms and Telecare

The Social Care Survey currently asks about all people who use Community Alarms and Telecare for the whole financial year. The Source social care data collection currently just collects information on new services. It is proposed that the revised Source social care data collection will collect data on all existing and new services.

Question 11 sought feedback on whether respondents agreed with this proposal. 83.3% (20 respondents) agreed with the proposal to collect information on all clients who have a community alarm/telecare service with 12.5% (3 respondents) disagreeing, with the remaining 4.2% (1 respondent) responding ‘don’t know’ (Table 6).

Table 6. Do you agree with the proposal to collect information on all people who have a community alarm/telecare service?


Percentage

Yes 20 83.3

No 3 12.5

Don’t know 1 4.2

Those that disagreed with the proposal were asked for more information. Two respondents provided further information in the free text option. One proposed the separation of community alarm and telecare for the purpose of this dataset suggesting telecare interventions are generally qualitatively different since they may be introduced at multiple times. Another respondent, although in agreement with the proposal to collect information on all clients with a community alarm/telecare service, identified local difficulties in supplying this information currently due to method of service provision chosen.

The Source social care data collection currently collects information on the “start date” of the community alarm/telecare service. It is proposed that the revised Source Social Care dataset will also ask a question about the “end date” of this service.

Question 12 sought feedback on this proposal. Table 7 shows that 83.3% (20 respondents) agree with the proposal to collect end date of community alarm/telecare with the remaining respondents split equally between no (8.3%) and don’t know (8.3%).

Table 7. Do you agree with the proposal to collect end date of the community alarm/telecare service?


Percentage

Yes 20 83.3

No 2 8.3

Don’t know 3 8.3


10

The respondents who replied ‘no’ supplied further information. One suggested this was too complex and not realistic as people can have multiple pieces of equipment and they would then have to submit data on the start and end date of all equipment being installed and removed which can happen at different points in time. The other, although in agreement with this proposal identified local difficulties in supplying this information currently due to method of service provision chosen.

Home care hours

The Social Care Survey asked for home care hours for a census week at the end of the financial year whereas the Source social care data collection requested information on the total number of Home Care Hours provided quarterly. It is proposed that the revised Source social care data collection will continue to collect information on the total number of Home Care Hours provided quarterly.

Question 13 asked respondents if they anticipated any problems with home care hours being collected each quarter. Fifty eight percent (14 respondents) replied that it was feasible to provide quarterly data. Twenty five percent (6 responses) said it was not feasible and the remaining 16% (3 responses) responded ‘don’t know’ (Table 8).

Of those reporting if was feasible to provide quarterly hours, 50% (7 responses) reported it would be possible but challenging. Respondents who reported that it was feasible but challenging or suggested it would not be feasible were asked to provide further information on their response. Thirty-six percent indicated increased workload was an issue with 29% reporting resource issues and 21% reporting additional time to achieve this being an issue. Additionally, 14% suggested further guidance/clarification would be needed on whether hours were planned or actual with actual appearing more difficult to submit.

Table 8. – Summary of responses to Questions 13 and 14

Respite and Day care

It is proposed that the new Source data collection will not include respite or day care sections. Question 14 asked if there were any problems anticipated with the discontinuation of collecting this information.

This question was coded differently to previous questions with ‘no issues’ referring being coded as positive and ‘issues with respite’, ‘issues with day care’ and ‘issues with both’ being coded as negative with ‘don’t know’ being neutral.


11

Table 8 shows that 75.0% (18 respondents) did not have an issue with discontinuing the collection of this information, 20.8% of respondents had an issue and reporting a negative response (5 people) and 4.2% (1 respondent) ‘didn’t know’ is this would cause an issue.

Eighty-three percent of respondents highlighting an issue had referred to an issue with both the discontinuation of respite and day care with the remaining 17% having an issue with the discontinuation of respite only.

Source Dataset Proposal (Questions 15 - Question 17)

Questions 15 to 17 sought feedback on how well the revised Source social care data collection would meet current and future needs.

Current needs

Question 15 addressed how well the new Source social care dataset meets current needs. Table 9 indicates that 8.3% (2 respondents) reported having all needs met by the new proposed dataset with 45.8% (11 respondents) indicating it met most or some needs and 12.5% (3 respondents) indicating the new dataset proposed did not meet current data needs.

Table 9. How well does the proposed new Source social care data set meet your current needs?


Percentage

Yes it meets all of our current data needs 2 8.3%

Yes, it meets most of our current data needs 6 25.0%

Yes, it meets some of our current data needs 5 20.8%

No, if does not meet our current data needs 3 12.5%

Don’t know 8 33.3%

Reasons provided to explain why all current needs are not met included, 23% (5 respondents) indicating that examples of/consultation on outputs and how information links to health would be necessary in order answer accurately, with 14% (3 respondents) implying they were unable to see the full potential without a final dataset. Nine percent (2 respondents) indicated the exclusion of autism as a client group affects current needs being met.

Future needs

Question 16 addressed how well the revised Source social care dataset meets future needs. Table 10 indicates that 8.3% (2 respondents) reported the proposed dataset meets all anticipated future needs with 29.2% (7 respondents) indicates the dataset meets most or some anticipated needs and 4.2% (1 respondents) implied anticipated future needs are not met with the new proposed Source social care dataset.


12

Table 10. How well does the proposed new Source social care data set meet future needs?


Percentage

Yes it meets all of our anticipated future needs 2 8.3%

Yes, it meets most of our anticipated future needs 4 16.7%

Yes, it meets some of our anticipated future needs 3 12.5%

No, if does not meet our anticipated future data needs 1 4.2%

Don’t know 14 58.3%

Reasons provided to explain why all anticipated needs are not met included; 27% of respondents (6 people) indicating that examples of/consultation on outputs and how the information links to health would be necessary in order answer accurately, with 9% (2 respondents) implying they were unable to see the full potential without a final dataset. Nine percent (2 respondents) indicated the inclusion of autism as a client group would help meet future needs, with a further 14% (3 respondents) implying that future anticipated needs are not met due to disagreeing with specific proposed items in the dataset, for example, one respondent did not understand the benefits of including child services, a respondent indicated that the proposal does not offer anything new and of benefit and a third proposing that the new dataset is a “hybrid and seeks too much information at an individual service level”.

Any additional feedback

Question 17 was a free text question that enabled respondents to provide any further comments not addressed in the consultation questions. Fifteen out of the possible 24 respondents provided additional feedback which covered an array of points for consideration. Common responses are highlighted below;

Concern relating to timescales being unrealistic/difficult to achieve (27% of respondents) Resource and workload issue (20% of respondents) Haven’t seen evidence of outputs linking social care and health (20% respondents) Phased approach suggested (13%) Questioned if worthwhile, unsure of benefits of combining datasets (13%) Backdating information will be difficult (13%)

Affect of respondents role and rating

The role of each respondent was examined in order to determine if this would have an effect on the positive/negative feedback of each question. It was concluded that there was no relationship between the respondent’s role and the way in which questions were related.


13

Section 2

Feedback from consultation sessions

Eight face-to-face and WebEx sessions were held in November in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Those who attended included, Data suppliers, External data users/Stakeholders and SG Policy.

As stated before the revised Source social care dataset will be split into six sections:







Responses from all sessions have been summarised and categorised into these section of the dataset they relate to. There is also a general summary on other fundamental aspects of the consultation (timescales, frequency of submission, scope of project).

Feedback on the revised Source social care dataset

Demographics

In general there were no issues raised about providing demographic information. A concern was raised about why identifiable information is being requested. The Information Sharing Agreement (ISA) will set out the legal reasons for collecting the social care information and will set out fully the reasons why identifiable information is required. This will include adding CHI to the records and the linkage of the Source social care data to health records.

Client Information

In general it was noted that the client groupings are a national grouping which feed into many collections, not just the Source social care data collection. A summary of the feedback on the discussion about client groups is included below.

Autism as a separate client group was considered during most of the sessions. Currently autism sits under the client group ‘other vulnerable group’. There were a number of proposals to have this as a separate client group to help link to the Learning Disability (LD) survey. However, there were concerns raised that not all partnerships currently collect this information.

It was also proposed during the discussions that the client group ‘Drugs and Alcohol’ should be split into separate client groups. There were no major concerns expressed about splitting this client grouping.


14

There was a lot of discussion about the, ‘Client has a social worker’ variable. There were many comments on the difficulty of returning this information due to unclear definitions and/or partnerships not currently collecting this information. There were suggestions that the definition should be widened to ‘client receiving social work activity’ which would encapsulate wider social care teams, Occupied Therapists, Home care managers and Social care officers.

The ‘Type of housing’ variable is not collected by all systems and therefore there were several suggestions that a ‘Not known’ response should be added for this variable in the dataset.

Self Directed Support

A concern was expressed that self directed support (SDS) needs were duplicating the specific service sections of the return e.g. Home care, Telecare and Alarms, Care home etc, therefore the guidance needs to be clear that self directed support is capturing the way in which the client accesses the service.

There were several problems raised by partnerships about submitting self directed support needs due to local IT issues. Difficulty was noted by several partnerships in separating out some of the self directed support categories.

Issues were also raised about separating the self directed support into the categories requested, for example, Local Authority, Private, and Voluntary, and the recording of SDS Needs specifically for clients receiving a Direct Payment. The Local Authority will not always know exactly what the direct payment was spent on, therefore this would be a challenging item to return.

There were varied responses about the ability to submit both net and gross costs and with the ability to submit costs in general. It was noted that it would be easier to provide gross costs as this was collected for the Scottish Government Social care survey. The main concern raised several times across most sessions was that Finance departments need to be involved to sign off data which increases the time required to extract and prepare the data for submission.

The importance of keeping the data and definitions consistent for the revised source social care data collection to the Scottish Government social care survey was stressed by colleagues in Scottish Government Policy teams.

Home Care

The main question on home care in the majority of sessions was - what frequency of data would be requested? The proposal for the revised Source social care data collection was to move from a one week snapshot of hours (Scottish Government social care survey) to a quarterly data collection (Source social care data collection). There was variation in the feedback of the preferred options; some submitters were happy to continue with quarterly reporting but some submitters would prefer a weekly snapshot. Some data users felt the one week snapshot was limited as home care is a very complex and dynamic service.


15

During the consultation it was unclear whether planned or actual home care hours were being requested. Currently partnerships submit a mixture of actual or planed hours to the Scottish Government social care survey.

Indicator of Relative Needs (IoRN) was initially proposed to sit under Section 4 (Home Care and Reablement). Feedback received suggested that IoRN information would be more appropriate captured under Section 2 Client Details as it can be used in services other than reablement or home care. It was also suggested a start date should be attached as clients could have more than one IoRN score and this would enable multiple dates and scores to be captured.


Feedback was in favour of the proposal to collect information on clients currently receiving Community alarms and Telecare services as opposed to collecting clients that have ever received an installation. This change will be achieved by including an end date to the data collection. Although in favour of this some participants of the consultation advised that their systems do not hold the start or end dates. It was also noted that identifying two users of these services in one household is quite difficult and a question was raised as to whether adaptations would be captured.

Care home

No issues with any care home variables and values were raised during the feedback sessions.

Provision Budgets

Provision budgets are captured within the Home care, Installations and Care home sections of the social care data collection. Across most consultation sessions the age groups attached to the budget options were found to be restrictive and difficult to categorise. The budget categories reflect the Local Government Returns categories. It was recommended that these are used throughout but with the age groups removed.

Removed sections

There was general consensus that the Respite section could be dropped from the Source social care data collection because it isn’t currently collected by the Scottish Government Social care survey and this information will be collected through other returns in the future such as the Carer’s survey. It was acknowledged that this is a challenging area to submit data and therefore the time spent collating and checking the information outweighs the benefit of submitting the data twice. A few concerns were raised that Respite is a growing area and a lot of children would be captured within this section.

There was only one concern raised by the proposal to drop care plan date as this might be used for costing.

Generally there wasn’t an issue with removing the day care section from the Source social care data collection; however it was raised that a lot of children would be captured within this


16

section and so to remove it may result in a loss of information. It was also noted that excluding Day care would exclude the cost from the total social care expenditure.

General themes

Access to data

There were several questions relating to access to the data from colleagues in eDRIS, Scottish Government Policy teams, Local Government Benchmarking Framework and the Care Commission. The questions included researchers accessing the data through the safe haven; whether Scottish Government would have access the data for requests such as Freedom of information requests, Ministerial briefings etc. and requests from other organisations, for example, whether the Care Inspectorate could get access to anonymised social care data. Any access would be subject to the appropriate permissions.

Scope of data collection

There was a strong feedback across most sessions that the returns should be specific to adults only. The feedback included that information is very hard to produce for children (if even possible) and some people felt that they got little return and value. However it was acknowledged that children with learning disability are a high cost service and so would be worth including. In terms of age groups there was a lot of confusion as to the exact inclusions/exclusions that were being asked for.

A few questions were raised in the sessions as to whether carers (paid or unpaid) were to be returned in the submissions.

The Learning disability survey is linked with the Social care survey. There was feedback raised that there needs to be consistency of data captured under the new joint social care data collection to enable the linkage of the collections to remain.

Scottish Government Policy teams also feedback that there needs to be the ability to review and change the data collection in the future to reflect changes in needs.

Validation

The data suppliers discussed the Source social care returns as intensive on both time and resource. It was commented that the submission process to the Scottish Government’s ProcXed system allows suppliers to validate and check their data before submitting, whereas through the Source social care data collection they submit the data ‘blind’ in .csv files which several responders described as more ‘technical’.

Furthermore the submission process through ProcXed for the Scottish Government’s Social care survey provides an option to bypass information that was not available. Some of these variables have now been proposed as mandatory and so it was asked if there would be a similar option to bypass in Source.


17

Frequency

Very mixed views were expressed on the frequency of the returns. Data users welcomed the proposal of quarterly data as this would supply them with near real time data. The partnerships currently submitting Source social care data were happy for the quarterly frequency to remain, however there was a lot of negative feedback from data providers who do not currently submit to the Source social care data collection. Responses included – validation was time intensive, they didn’t see benefit of quarterly submissions and partnerships were suffering resource issues and therefore were unable to commit to quarterly returns. There were various proposals put forward at the session regarding the feedback for the first year of the data collection including, it should be annual, six-monthly, for only Quarter 4 of financial year 2017/18 or just a snapshot week in March 2017/18.

Frequency raised a lot of concerns with stakeholders asking if contingency plans were in place if data is not submitted to the Source social care data collection or if the data quality is poor.

Resources

Across the data provider sessions one of the main points of feedback was the lack of resource in the partnerships. The data comes from several different systems and relies on different teams to collate, validate and sign off the release of the data.

It is often one person’s job to pull all the data together but with increasing work demands and no extra or reducing resource, there were real concerns that there is no room for another piece of work because the work priorities for the next year are already agreed.

Changes required to IT systems were also noted as big concern. Lead times of up to a year are normal when requesting changes to systems and so the tight time pressure was not deemed realistic.

Timescales

During the discussions of the timescales for this work data providers explained that this work may clash with a lot of other priorities: annual and local reporting and Learning Disability returns. Some advised that 2017/18 data could only be provided from July onwards, whilst others were happy to continue with submitting six weeks after quarter end.

External stakeholders

During meetings with policy stakeholders it was raised that engagement with COSLA, Social Work Scotland and Ministers should be a priority to raise any issues/risks.


18

Conclusion

Dataset

Demographics

There were no actions required with regards to the Demographics section of the social care dataset.

Client Information

Within the client group field:

Clients with Autism were previously reported under the ‘Other vulnerable group’ code. In response to advice given during the consultation sessions Autism will become a separate client group.

The Drugs and Alcohol client group has been divided to provide more specific recording.

A new code ‘Neurological conditions’ has also been added to the client group list: the majority of the online responses advised that it would be feasible to record this code - though it was acknowledged that this may take some time to implement due to a requirement to make the necessary system changes.

The potential to collect information on whether a client has a Social Worker was discussed in detail throughout the sessions. Although this information was previously part of the Scottish Government’s Social care survey, the information was noted by some as being difficult to gather - and there were some concerns about the clarity of the definition resulting in confusion on what to include. These concerns were mirrored in the online consultation over 90% of respondents advised that they could gather this information and there is a definite requirement from the Scottish Government. Uses included analysing client/patient outcomes and understanding the client’s journey across and beyond social care. Taking all of this into account it has been decided that the field will be kept but with the following recording options; Yes, No, Not known. The definitions and recording guidance have also been expanded with the aim of providing more clarity on the scope of what is required.

It is clear that Type of Housing is not universally available from the social work systems and acknowledging this a ‘Not known’ code has been added to the recording options.

Questions had been raised about the IoRN Group (and Date) that had been placed in the home care/reablement section (section 4) – it was noted that the use of the IoRN may happen outside of these types of care and that more than one IoRN Group may be determined in a reporting period. After initially moving IoRN into section 2 (client information) it has been decided that IoRN should sit as a separate optional section (section 7- IoRN) to allow for multiple records to be submitted.


19

Self Directed Support (SDS)

Throughout the consultation sessions it was noted that the variable Self Directed Support Needs seemed to be duplicating the specific service sections of the return. It was discussed that capturing this provides information on the way these services are accessed. It is understood that Self Directed Support is not an actual “service” itself. These points are reflected in the new Definitions and Recording Guidance.

Initially within the proposed dataset all Self Directed Support items had been marked as mandatory. It was clear however that some partnerships would have difficulty in separating out different options when recording Self Directed Support Needs and Support. For this reason a ‘Not known’ category has been added to the recording options thus giving an option, to provide as much detail as possible to the submitters who could not complete this field.

There was a mixed response from partnerships over the collection of both net and gross costs.

Gross budget provides the full assessed value based on assessed needs and should be available from the Self-Directed Support assessment. Arguably Gross budget may provide a better indication of the level of need than net budget which is adjusted by people’s ability to pay towards their care and the local authority charging policy.

Net budget however provides data on the value of the local authority contribution towards social care – information that is potentially useful for a range of different purposes including improving what we know about social care costs in a way that is better aligned with the Net health costs that are currently available at person level. Linkage of Net expenditure will improve understanding of the whole system costs at client level [Noting however that the social care costs are ‘budget’ and not necessarily actual spend].

There were some mixed messages from the consultation: in the online consultation, more respondents suggested that returning Gross costs would be difficult, whereas in the consultation sessions there was a stronger message that returning Net costs would be difficult.

Having considered all the feedback and the potential benefits it has been decided that collection of both Net and Gross budgets are needed. If there are issues submitting both Net and Gross budgets, Gross budgets would be initially accepted and we will continue to work with Partnerships to obtain Net budget.

Note that during one consultation event it was pointed out that asking for both of these might permit identification of how much an individual pays towards their care. In response rigorous adherence to disclosure policy guidelines would be necessary to ensure no identifiable client information were published to show an individual’s Gross and Net SDS budget.


20

Note that in a further refinement to ensure accurate total values are captured from the Local Authorities systems, rather than deriving these by summing across the components, Net Value Total and Gross Value Total have been added to the dataset.

Home Care

Prominent in the discussions on the Home Care data section were whether the data on hours of care provided are to be ‘planned’ or ‘actual’ – the former being the assessed planned hours and the actual being the hours actually received by an individual in the period.

In the consultation the majority of partnerships said that it would be more straightforward to provide planned hours, though some advised that they could submit actual hours. In reaching a decision we were mindful of the clear benefit gained from consistency and comparability. Whilst accepting there are strengths in both options, the decision has been taken to adopt planned hours. Note that in the Social care survey there was an option to provide actual hours and data suppliers who are unable to provide planned home care hours should contact ISD data management team to consider interim arrangements.

A second issue raised was the time period covered by home care: of the 24 responses in the online survey, almost 59% advised that it was feasible to submit home care data for the full quarter (rather than, for example, a sample week), though it is fully acknowledged that respondents did comment that this would be challenging. This added weight to the decision to ask for planned hours, which, in general, would be more readily collated.

The conclusion reached is that the benefits in having full quarter data would outweigh the extra effort: in particular to support the preparation of more comprehensive data for partnership purposes (a week sample may miss some clients entirely and underreport the provision of home care). Note also that some partnerships who were supplying the original Source social care dataset are already familiar with the reporting of quarterly data.

In summary for 2017/18 the request for home care data is for quarter four only (January – March) of financial year 2017/18.

Another matter that has had to be resolved on home care hours is to determine whether the hours should reflect a person perspective or a provider perspective where more than one formal carer is present during some or all contacts. It has been decided that the advantages of a person-centred approach outweigh the merit of understanding in detail the provider hours and consequentially the Guidance will reflect this.

Because of the benefits of approximating the cost of care, the field that asks whether more than one carer is involved now asks whether multiple carers are present or not and, when they are present, whether this is up to and including half the contacts or more. This split will allow the possibility of rough costing to be done.


21


For the revised Source social care dataset to replicate the Scottish Government’s Social Care Survey the only change needed to the previous Community alarms and Telecare section was to add an end date to each record. This would enable a count of current users and was met with a positive response both in the consultation sessions and the online consultation. A couple of concerns were noted in the online consultation where it was advised that there could be multiple end dates due to different services being removed at different points in time. Although this has been noted, it was agreed that the end date is required to produce a current count of clients receiving either service, and there is the ability to submit multiple rows per person to account for the multiple services the client could be receiving within the defined time period. It was agreed that this section will not capture information on adaptations and will only focus on Community alarms and Telecare.

At the request of the Technology Enabled Care Programme a longer term need to review the contents of this section is recognised.

Care Home

There were no issues raised with the Care Home section in either the online consultation or the consultation sessions and no change is proposed to the content of the original Source social care dataset.

Provision Budgets

Provision budgets that capture the primary budget code for funding the service appear within the Home care, Community alarms and Telecare and Care Home sections. The initial proposal made included age groups for each of the funding sources but, through discussions involving both data submitters and data users, it was clear the age groups were restrictive and difficult to categorise. In response to this the age groups have been removed from the funding options.

Removed Sections

The original Source social care dataset included sections on Day Care and Respite and, within the Client Information section a Care Plan date. The need for retaining this information was subject to consultation and/or discussion and, in conclusion, only a day care marker field will be included in the new dataset. The majority of participants of both consultations were in favour of removing the other fields from the collection.

Respite in particular is a challenging area to collect consistently and, as it will be covered in the new Carer’s data, there was no benefit identified to keep this field. The potential use of care plan date was likely to be very limited and has also been removed.

Although the proposal to drop the original Day Care section had support in both consultations, a valid case for retaining a limited field remains [for example, the marker for day care will identify those clients who do or don’t receive Day Care which can be used in further developed pathways analyses]. In conclusion a Day Care yes/no marker has been added to Section 2 Client Information.


22

Scope of the collection

The Scottish Government’s Social Care Survey collected data on all ages, whereas the original Source social care dataset collected data on clients aged 18 and over, or where services for 16 and 17 year olds were provided by adult services. There were conflicting opinions in the online consultation and consultation sessions on this issue. Over 95% of respondents advised that it was feasible to submit data on all ages (although there were concerns with regards to time and resource); throughout the consultation sessions however it was advised that an adults only collection would be more straightforward. All comments were considered and it was concluded that on balance the inclusion of children was advantageous, with benefits at national level envisaged as well as at local level. This would enable consistency with the data collected previously and published through the Social Care Survey.

Frequency of submissions

The frequency of submissions was discussed at length throughout the consultation sessions. As a general summary data submitters noted that a quarterly return would be time and resource intensive, while the data users and customers welcomed the idea of more current and up-to-date data which would be available for operational policy, planning and outcome based purposes. The online responses were 81% that it was feasible to submit quarterly returns however it was noted that although this is feasible, it remains very challenging.

The advantages of quarterly updates include for example linkage with the continuously updated key health data. In response to the concerns expressed in the consultation however years one and year two of the new Source Social care dataset process will be framed differently to allow for a more phased approach for partnerships that need extra time to ensure their systems are not overloaded.

The planned timetable is available separately.


23

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Consultation on Social Care data collection

CONSULTATION ON SOCIAL CARE DATA COLLECTION

You may be aware, that we are planning to merge the Scottish Government Social Care Survey and the Information Services Division (ISD) Source social care data collection. The Source approach of data collection will be the single solution to meet both needs in future. A joint team of Scottish Government and ISD staff has provisionally defined a combined social care dataset, which we wish to consult on.

The purpose of the consultation is to ensure that the revised Source social care dataset meets all information needs, including intelligence that supports the planning and delivery of integrated services and data for the reporting of official statistics, policy makers and other users.

The revised Source social care dataset is split into 6 sections:







This consultation mainly concentrates on changes made to Sections 2 to 5. There are also some specific questions relating to data provision.

Note that this consultation asks for information on the organisation you work for - information that will enable us to identify the different organisations responding. Information submitted in the survey will be securely processed and analysed by ISD. It is our intention that the evidence and outcome will be published on both the ISD and Scottish Government websites. This may include specific comments you make however where applicable comments will be anonymised to remove identifiable references to people or places.


24

1) Are you responding to this consultation as an individual or an organisation?

a. Individual b. Organisation

2) Please use the drop-down list to tell us which Organisation your response is on behalf of:

a. Health and Social Care Partnership b. Local Authority c. NHS Board d. Charity/Voluntary/Not for profit e. Scottish Government f. Academic institution g. ISD/LIST analyst h. Private Sector i. Other..... [please specify]

............................................................................................................................

3) What is the name of your organisation?

................................................................................................................................

4) Please use the list below to tell us what your role is: (Select more than one option if required)

a. Data provider b. Manager c. Commissioner/Planner d. Policy User e. Analyst/researcher f. Other, please specify:

............................................................................................................................

If you are happy for us to contact you if we require clarification of your survey response please provide a contact email below.

.......................................................................................................................................


25

This section of the questionnaire relates to data providers only. If you are not a data provider please go to question 9.

Data Provision

Data for the Social Care Survey is currently provided annually for the financial year. The Source social care data collection is preferably provided quarterly.

It is proposed that the new Source Social Care dataset to ISD is:-

an annual return for 2017-18 a quarterly return from April-June 2018 onwards

5) How easily do you think your organisation will be able to provide a quarterly return to ISD?


If b-c: Please explain why you think this is:

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................


26

The Social Care Survey collects information for all ages and the Source data set collects information only for people aged 18 and over. To retain the Social Care Survey trends it is proposed that the new Source social care data collection will collect information on all ages.

6) How easily do you think your organisation will be able to provide data on all ages to ISD? a. Feasible, no issues b. Feasible, but will be challenging c. Not feasible d. Don’t know


................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................


27

The scope for the Social Care Survey includes all people who have a social worker or support worker regardless if they are receiving any services such as home care or telecare. The Source data set currently collects information only on people who are receiving particular services. To ensure that future data is consistent with the Social Care Survey it is proposed that the new Source social care data collection will include people who have a social worker or support worker.

7) How easily do you think your organisation will be able to provide data on all people who have a social worker or a support worker?



................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................


28

The Social Care Survey asks Yes/No questions about Home Care, Self-Directed Support and Community Alarms and locally this data is linked and quality assured. This means that for each individual client, the Social Care Survey can tell us explicitly whether people did or did not have each of these services.

The Source social care data collection asks for information for people who receive home care, self directed support and community alarms in separate sections (sections 3 to 5).

It is proposed that we will derive a Yes/No response by assuming the response is “No” if no detailed information is provided for a client for that service. (This would mean that the new Source data collection would not specifically ask for a “Yes/No” response).

8) Do you agree that the proposal (a derived yes/no response) will provide a complete record of everyone receiving a service?

a. Yes b. No, I have concerns with this c. Don’t know

If b: Please explain why you think this:

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................


29

In the updated Source Social Care dataset, we are proposing to add a category to the Client Group question asking about Neurological conditions. This category has not previously been included in either the Social Care Survey or the Source social care data collection.

This question is included in the new Carers Census which was agreed and consulted on this year. It has also been added to the Scottish Care Homes Census this year at the request of the third sector. This proposed change will therefore bring the new Social Care dataset in line with other Social Care Surveys.

9) When do you envisage being able to implement this new code:

a. For the 2017-18 data return b. For the 2018-19 financial year c. Don’t know d. Other; please specify

..........................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................

..........................................................................................................................


30

Questions on section 3 on Self Directed Support

The Social Care Survey currently asks for Gross budget in relation to Self Directed Support. This was agreed as the preferred measure following consultation in 2012 and a further refinement of the definitions agreed through a small working group and full Local Authority event in 2014. Gross expenditure provides an indication of level of need and will include contributions from health or from the client themself. Gross expenditure also provides consistent budget data for clients which is not influenced by wealth or local charging policies.

The Source social care data collection collects information on Net budget to be comparable with health costs. This tells us how much the Local Authority alone is contributing to the Self Directed Support budget.

To meet the needs of all data users it is proposed that the new Source Social Care dataset from 2017-18 requests information about both Gross and Net budget for self-directed support.

10) Do you agree with this proposal to extend the social care dataset to collect both Net and Gross budget?

a. Yes b. No c. Don’t know

If b: Please explain why you do not agree with this proposal:

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................


31

For the new section 5 on Community Alarms and Telecare there will be two changes required to the Source social care data collection.

The Social Care Survey currently asks about all people who use Community Alarms and Telecare for the whole financial year. The Source social care data collection currently just collects information on new services. It is proposed that the new collection will collect data on all existing and new services.

The Source social care data collection currently collects information on the “start date” of the community alarm/telecare service. The Social Care Survey currently has no date information.

It is proposed that the new Source Social Care Dataset will also ask a question about the “end date” of this service.

Both these changes will enable the number of people who have a community alarms/Telecare system to be calculated at any point in time and also how long people have it for. This will be helpful for knowing whether people just have the system for part of the year (e.g. winter months) and will be useful for looking at the data longitudinally and for pathways analysis when linking with health data and other sources.

11) Do you agree with this proposal to collect information on all people who have a community alarm/Telecare service? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t know


................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

12) Do you agree with this proposal to collect the end date of the community alarm/Telecare service? a. Yes b. No c. Don’t know


................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................


32

The Social Care Survey currently asks for Home Care Hours for a census week at the end of the financial year. This data feeds into the National Indicator on Care needs, the Improvement Service Benchmarking indicators, UK Annual Productivity publication by Office for National Statistics and is used extensively by partnerships, local authorities and health boards

The Source social care data collection requests information on the total number of Home Care Hours provided quarterly.

It is proposed that the new Source data collection will continue to collect information on the total number of Home Care Hours provided quarterly. This will enable the hours used in a full year to be reviewed. Where required the hours for the Social Care Survey census week will be derived from this information and the home care start and end dates. This will be an estimate of the hours for the census week.

13) Do you anticipate any problems with the home care hours being collected for each quarter?



................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................


33

It is proposed that the new Source data collection will not include respite or day care sections.

14) Do you anticipate any problems with the discontinuation of these sections?

a. No issues b. Issues with respite c. Issues with day care d. Issues with both e. Don’t know

If b-d: Please explain why you think this is and which section this relates to:

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................


34

You have been provided with a document that outlines the proposed new Source Social Care Dataset.

15) How well does the proposed new Source Social Care Dataset meet your current data needs?

a. Yes, it meets all of our current data needs b. Yes, it meets most of our current data needs c. Yes, it meets some of our current data needs d. No, it does not meet our current data needs e. Don’t know

If b-e: Please explain your response and let us know of any areas where the data collection could be improved:

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

16) How well does the proposed new Source Social Care Dataset meet your anticipated future data needs?

a. Yes, it meets all of our anticipated future data needs b. Yes, it meets most of our anticipated future data needs c. Yes, it meets some of our anticipated future data needs d. No, it does not meet our anticipated future data needs e. Don’t know


................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................


35

17) If you have any other comments on the proposals for the new Source Social Care data collection, please provide them here:

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................

................................................................................................................................


36

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this consultation.

Consultation responses will be used to influence the proposals for the revised Source social care data collection to ensure it can be achieved and meet user’s needs. It is planned to publish the results of the consultation on the Health and Social care pages of the ISD website and on Health and Community Care - Data Supplier area of the SG website.

If you would like to contact us please email [email protected] or [email protected].


37

Appendix 2 – Online consultation survey free text responses

Question 5. How easily do you think your organisation will be able to provide a quarterly return to ISD?

Additional feedback was requested from those that responded:

b) Feasible but will be challenging

c) Not feasible

Considerable amount of work in formatting the data to the specifications required, existing data is taken from numerous sources and calculations need to be made to cover each quarter as services are usually provided, and recorded, weekly.

Due to how the data is held new reports will need to be written, hopefully once this piece of work is done providing them quarterly shouldn't be so challenging.

Previously the resource was once a year and now quarterly. However this should get easier once reports a built up.

Resource issues and data quality. Volume of data and data checking involved in a return of full quarter data. Social Care return and Source are completed by the same members of staff along with other Scottish Government returns and all local performance reporting.

The response here will be dependent on the outcome of queries arising from the consultation. An annual return for 2017/18 should be feasible, however this partnership intend to use data from the Social Care Survey to inform the 2017/18 return. A number of data sets were rejected in the 2016 upload therefore working with our LIST representative to explore the issues and resolve for future submissions. Quarterly submission will not be initially feasible as we are currently engaging in a transformation programme and the use of new digital technology. There is uncertainty around our current management information system and future functionality.

The current social care return takes circa 200 hours to complete. Current resources are not scaled up to enable this to be completed quarterly. It would be not be feasible to resource this.

Quality assurance/ verification of data Resources and time constraints may be a challenge Staff resource and competing demands for quarterly performance reporting will be the

main challenge. In addition the gathering, extracting, and interpretation of the data requires manual intervention and therefore more resource intensive.

The process of gathering the data is feasible. For the majority of the data to be submitted there is not going to be an issue, however, where further investigation is required (anomalous records, missing information, incorrect information etc) this is the time consuming part of any data submission. For an annual return this length of time fits well into the work programme of those compiling the return. For a quarterly return, even with the potential improvements to data quality that will ensue from more frequent analysis of these data, the time constraints will be difficult to fit into other work and make completing a full return extremely challenging. The current data quality checks that are provided as part of the submission through Scotxed are extremely helpful. They highlight the issues there and then. Having the chance to correct the submission, and source data if necessary, at the point of submission is greatly valued. Having to return to fix data issues at a later date, as with the Source submissions currently, does relegate the immediacy of the problem in the mind of those working on the data.


38

Some data completeness issues have been identified that require addressing to allow the full dataset to be submitted - this will require process change for a few teams and small changes to systems forms, while not huge this may be challenging in terms of the timeframe . This is not so much an issue with the data set which is a significant improvement on the previous in terms of reduced complexity.

It is challenging to extract and validate the data on a quarterly basis due to lack of resources within the Performance Team. However the benefits of having timeous data which can be linked to Health data will be extremely useful and we hope to be able to meet the quarterly submissions.

Multiple data sources are pulled together to populate Social Care Survey. We do not have control over the data sources or the right to ask for increased workload of the data owners. Team capacity is another issue that will need to be considered in order to return this data set. Getting validation errors from the current upload through ProcXed is more useful than the SOURCE upload system where errors are sent out post submission.

This is because of the volume of work required. Homecare section is significantly different from the current data collection for the annual return to the Scottish Government, in that it is full service for the quarter and not service for a census week. Social work electronic systems will not be up to date to submit the information to the required timescales. Typically, our finance systems may not be up to date with changes in Care Home information for 6 to 8 weeks. For homecare, we can submit planned rather than actual service as it is likely that variances to service will not have been processed. However new customers and customer end dates to both homecare and Care home sections will not be up to date.

Responsibilities are changing for the reporting of Children's services from health board to council. We (Health board) currently provide all Social Care and Health reporting, but will only report for Adult services in the future.

We are in the process of procuring a new social work information system, so we are currently limited by inefficient data recording, storage and processing. For example, our current Social Care Survey return is aggregated from multiple sources, requires significant data cleaning giving a lengthy turn around ahead of submission. In addition, some of the proposals for information over a period, rather than as a snapshot, increase the complexity of processing the data. A bi-annual return for 2018/19 may be a more realistic and helpful transition to quarterly reporting in subsequent years

It is possible to produce a report that provides some of the data (with some caveats around mandatory fields and particularly around SDS and finance). The provision of the Social Care return can currently take a number of months due to the process of verification and approval prior to the sending of the data. The timing of sending quarterly returns needs to be considered and the risk appetite in relation to data quality. There will be particular challenges in relation to specific times of year – for example financial year end and Christmas/New Year.

Capacity/resource issues and quality of data which will require manual manipulation and checking. Capacity to complete once a year however quarterly would be more difficult. Information is not always held within one system which requires detailed cross referencing and checking to ensure all data is correct and matches.

The exercise to produce the initial annual 17/18 return and quarterly returns for 18/19 are likely to overlap significantly - given that overlap, unlikely to meet timescales for majority of 18/19. Work will required to ensure that all data fields are populated and to develop and test reports to meet specification. HSCP will be undergoing organisational change and changing pathways to services all of which will impact on request. Move to community led support may see reduction in data recording would be good to link with other Scottish sites adopting this approach.


39

“Data for the Social Care Survey is currently provided annually for the financial year. The Source social care data collection is preferably provided quarterly”. This statement is misleading as the major element of SCS (Homecare) is currently only provided once per year (annually) for 1 week’s snap-shot of service activity. The proposal for SCS via ISD should not be considered a different way of delivering an existing process as this is not an accurate reflection as this proposal will require major additional resource and capacity to fulfil. This does not appear to be acknowledged at a national level by ISD nor at HSCP IJB level. In practical terms, and its current format, the social care survey takes around 100 hours to complete including data extraction, cleansing, formatting and validation/analysis. Given the proposal to increase both the scope and the frequency of this survey to all activity every quarter, this puts a significant strain on existing time resources and makes the new survey proposal feasible, but with very real challenges and risks to current local service levels. One particular concern is the proposed method of submission. – Globalscape. Currently the social care survey is submitted via ProcXed, this method allows a single submission with built-in immediate error /validation functionality, making the process quick, efficient and visible. Globalscape in comparison requires multiple single submissions with a separate error and validation process and the concern is that this lengthens the time required for submission making a quarterly submission less feasible. Additionally no quality checks in place to assure data providers that data submitted is same as that being received and processed at ISD.

Question 6. How easily do you think your organisation will be able to provide data on all ages to ISD?



c) Not feasible

Only adults is devolved to health and social care partnership. Information provision in relation to children may not be comparable to that of Adults/Older

people. The data on adults and children are contained within different parts of our systems and checks will require to be undertaken to identify if comparable data is recorded.

The service function of adult services and children services is managed across two Directorates. Data submissions would need to be provided and submitted by two separated teams.

There are specific challenges around the recording of packages of care arranged via SDS for children. Recording has not yet been developed on systems and this information is currently provided by the Children with Disability team on an annual basis. Collating these data is a time consuming exercise. As with the current submission, knowledge about alarms provided to (generally) older people living in sheltered housing is not available where the provider of the equipment is not the Council’s Community Alarm and Telecare Service. Again, as with the current submission, the information on alarms and telecare is held on a separate system which has the equipment, rather than the individual using the equipment, as the index number. The matching undertaken to link these data with the rest of the return can be time consuming. Quadrupling the number of times each year the matching has to happen will be a challenge, especially to maintain the level of matching that currently occurs.

Due to how data is held between Adult & Children & Families, an entirely new ISP would be required alongside new data extraction processes.


40

For under 18’s we can provide demographics. Any further data for under 18’s resides within Council systems to which we do not have access.

Although the Social Care Survey asked for data on all ages I that most partnerships only returned data on adults and included only limited data on those of all ages.

The Social Care survey does not collect information for all Social Work customers. It collects data on adults. The only sections that include children are SDS and under the Social work support question. It only includes “Children with Disabilities”. The inclusion criteria for the Social Care Survey 2017 (pages 2 and 3 of guidance notes) states that information should be returned on anyone with the specified services; Community alarms, Telecare, Home Care, Housing Support, Meals service. And also that “Information must also be returned on every person who had an assessment or review of their needs and who as a result of this assessment receives/uses the following services at any time during the financial year: Social worker/support worker services (Community Care , Mental health, Substance Misuse, Children with disabilities”.)The services included in this and in the proposed SOURCE data collection are all adult services. The only children included will be included are children with disabilities if they are receiving a service through SDS. These would also have been included under the “Social Work Support “question. If the question on Social Work support is included in the SOURCE return and defined in the same way as in the Social Care Survey then all cases allocated to the Children with disabilities team would be included. However, the bulk of childcare cases including would not be included. The definition of the Social worker services in the Social Care Survey guidance page 9 specifically states to exclude; child protection, looked after children social work, adoption and fostering and residential child care social work. The return is therefore not collecting data on all Social Work cases. It would not be difficult to include the children with disability cases.

Staff resource and competing demands for quarterly performance reporting will be the main challenge. In addition the gathering, extracting, and interpretation of the data requires manual intervention and therefore more resource intensive

Whilst we are currently able to include people aged under 18 in the Social Care Survey, there are issues aligning Children & Family social work records of services wholly to the child/young person and not simply to the parent. Recording and retrieving service uptake for 18+ service users are not replicated in the Children & Families module in our IT system. In view of the challenges this involves it may be best to keep the dataset to 18+ service users only until the data set has settled in.

Under 18’s could be included, but the specification needs to be clearer about what is in and out of scope. May be complicated as some services may be recorded against adults rather than children, and there are cross funding issues. What are the implications of Continuing care, the Carer’s Act and free personal care for under 65s? It is also unclear how this links to other returns and if all service users are captured across the returns?

This is feasible however the volume of data to be extracted and formatted will increase, placing more demand on time.

Similar issue as above around timescales, also inclusion of child data is likely to increase the time required to prepare the return and increase the complexity of reporting. Unclear of scope of children and families element, as to whether it includes all children with an allocated social worker or those receiving services through SDS – would benefit from further guidance.

The social care survey asks you to include individuals under the age of 18 who are social care clients (children with disability), and who are not involved in other services such as Child Protection, Looked after children, Adoption and Fostering, and residential child care. In principle we should be able to isolate, identify and submit the details of those under 18s who are receipt of a social care service however as we have not previously submitted this


41

client group then doing so would represent a challenge in identify the additional time, resource and capacity required.

Question 7. How easily do you think your organisation will be able to provide data on all people who have a social worker or a support worker?



c) Not feasible

Can be reported where the data is recorded within the local authority area. If support worker is provided through dept or agency not using our systems then can not always be provided.

We have only returned this information once in our Social Care Return submission: the first year of inclusion. The data requirement was that we include everyone who has a social worker/support worker regardless of whether they receive any of the services within the return. This significantly increased the volume of people included in the return and the data checks involved. SG guidance on which workers should be included as support workers was inconsistent and therefore reporting across HSCPs was not comparable. The usefulness of this data is also questionable.

We can presume that all clients who are receiving a homecare or SDS service should be on our management information system. However we do have direct access clients such as meals on wheels and community alarm clients who do not require the ongoing support of a social worker.

The information currently supplied for the social care survey is at a point in time. Therefore the data may include information on those individuals who previously had a social worker during the year but may not have at the time the data is collected. Individuals’ care journeys may be such that they have a social worker or support worker at different points in time over a year.

Data quality issues. This is a narrowly defined part of the return which is challenging to accurately complete

currently. The current question asks only for people who have had a social worker or support worker assigned as the result of an assessment. It is currently assumed that any adult who has a worker whose earliest involvement starts no later than 90 days after any assessment end and that involvement ends after the assessment end should be included. For children this is limited to section 23 assessments and workers in the disability team. I use 90 days to allow for delays in allocation to a social worker. This will continue to be challenging to identify which cases to include as it is not possible to determine whether the allocation of a worker is actually the result of the assessment, I have just developed a rationale to link two events which are recorded independently. Is there any reason not to extend the staff group to other professions such as Occupational Therapists? The need for a consistent approach between authorities is vital if meaningful data are to be obtained. Further clarification is required on the inclusion of children who are included by virtue of being involved with Children with Disabilities social work. It is feasible that these children could also be other categories of children’s social work, such as LAC or residential child care.

There needs to be very clear definition surrounding what is deemed to be social worker support -i.e. does this mean anyone who has had an assessment?


42

For Adults, we can't extract the data in line with the exclusions detailed in the data definitions. For under 18’s we can provide demographics. Any further data for under 18’s resides within Council systems to which we do not have access.

A large number of extra cases will be included. However, we currently do this for the Social Care return so it is feasible. If the customers would only need to be included in, the demographics and client information section then this would not be too difficult. We would just include anyone with an allocation to an adult Social fieldwork team and children with disabilities team, regardless of if they have any of the listed services. There may be some data which is unknown i.e. dates of birth, ethnicity. If it is possible to return unknown for particular fields then we will be able to do this.We will complete this based on allocation to team rather than the customer having a particular type of worker. There are several worker types that give social work support.

Changes in reporting responsibility. The case status indicates whether a social worker or a support worker is involved, but

case status will change over a period. We believe clarification is required as to the purpose of this item. Is there an interest in assessment or review activity, when a case will be allocated for that purpose, or in ongoing casework, such as counselling, information and advice, or, in more complex cases, care management? If the former, then why not ask for assessment and review dates? If the latter, we would be concerned that it would be difficult to obtain comparable data across local authorities because types of case status and their definition will not be consistent. There is also the issue of pending cases, which are an indication of anticipated need, and to a lesser extent, anticipated service. Again, different local authorities will have different operational procedures regards case allocation and case status, and in how they define the case status for different types of case. For example, how they classify cases with open services in a support plan are allocated or not if the service user is between assessments/reviews.

We can provide a report that can show some data, but again it depends on the definition and expectations around this. Many cases will be held at team level while small pieces of work are carried out by a variety of staff. In the care cycle, new work will be held at team level and may be allocated to a worker for an assessment and care plan. They may then be held at a team level for the review process. This varies between types of cases.

1. Issue of volume of data to be extracted, reviewed and checked. 2. The new community Led support approach means we will be providing multi agency community hubs where people will drop in and may receive information or sign posting without having a social work assessment recorded so we may be unable to collect accurate stats on people who have had a one off intervention with a social worker or care manager.


43

Question 8. Do you agree that the proposal (a derived yes/no response) will provide a complete record of everyone receiving a service?



c) Not feasible

Some SDS questions included in the past would not include detailed information where a specific option was chosen - this could lead to an assumed 'no' which would not be the case. Guidance would need to be clear to resolve this.

No, a don’t know response, or ability to provide no response is required. Some fields on our system default to no. An example of this is living alone. As such it is not possible to say whether no is no or don’t know.

Where an individual is hospitalised or outwith the area for a period (quarter) and is in receipt of Home Care prior to hospitalisation, the report would show that they had telecare but no record of home care though the service was technically still "live" . The same would hold true for services such as meals provision.

All social care is provided under the self-directed support regime, so to separate SDS as a service doesn’t really make sense as the answer will always be yes.

We may not have this data as it may not be recorded on the system but to assume this as a No response would be inaccurate. A third option of Don’t Know would be more useful.

Probably possible to assume yes/no if customer appears or does not appear in the relevant section. However, this is part of a general issue, which is that submission of the Social Care return through ProcXed gave automatic data tidying. For example, the yes/no question could be cross-referenced and this was a check. The system also would give error codes identifying things like incorrect postcodes, which could be amended or cleared by entering a comment. This means that the data was checked before it was uploaded. In addition, the ProcXed system generated tables from the data, which could be used to check against your previous submission and spot any potential errors and or large variances. They could also be used to give to managers for approval of the return before it was submitted. The Social Care Survey details for all authorities were then published on the Scottish Government website with interactive spreadsheets which could be used for informing local policy and completion of FOI’s. While SOURCE information will ultimately be linked and available, it is not immediate, it does not allow data –checks before upload. This means extra work for staff to check and to compile their own tables to inform managers locally. In addition, less information will be publicly available to refer people to.

Self-Directed Support overarches all possible services, including Home Care and Telecare. The concern here is that for those choosing option 1 we may not know which particular services they are accessing, nor the volume of care. Whilst these are currently a minority of service users, it is a potentially growing one that is in danger of hiding explicit service provision.

We don’t have a complete quality assured record because an external organisation supplies meals and alarms. We currently record telecare but not alarms separately –this may be re-looked at in future.


44

Question 9. A new code for client group of Neurological conditions will be added. When do you envisage being able to implement this new code? If the option ‘other’ was chosen as the response additional information was requested:

This would be dependant in internal consultation. Will ensure that this is raised with the appropriate stakeholders and provide a more detailed response in due course.

New client groups can be added to our recording system in time for the 2018/19 return, however, these will only be used for new clients. Until such time as we have resources available to update existing clients the numbers for these new client groups would be low.

Timescale unknown. Development work required in terms of system configuration, categorisation and working practices on recording would be required.

Information is not currently recorded (and social care database is currently not designed to record it).

Question 10. For self directed support - do you agree with the proposal to extend the social care dataset to collect both Net and Gross budget? If the response was ‘no’ further information was requested.

We would be unable to provide any budget information for Option 3 but even for the other options providing Gross budgets would also be an issue.

If both fields are mandatory we would have difficulty in providing this. We have reported net values to the Scottish Government as gross values are not easily identifiable from current recording systems. In addition the value for Option 3 is not mandatory for the Scottish Government in recognition that this could be difficult to identify.

This would become more of a duplication with the LFR which includes Gross and Net figures. This is a social care dataset which should focus on need. The danger of providing the same data in different places is that there are (legitimate and explicable) differences that become the focus rather than the substantive data.

The total budget is an NHS budget and this information (which currently isn’t available for all clients) would not provide any information on the local authority contribution.

Currently reported gross costs but would need further discussion with finance colleagues. This is currently only available for options 1 and 2 not option 3.

Gross value is calculated using the weekly cost times the number of weeks agreement is open. It is more complicated to calculate the net cost. In addition, nothing to be gained from net cost as authorities vary have different applicable charges. Some councils do not charge at all for any services, some charge for day care services but different amounts, some have ceilings on their applicable charges but different ceilings from each other so there will be no continuity across authorities.

Reporting both net and gross budget will require an upgrade of our current financial system. However, the view here is that comparisons of net and gross budgets are most appropriately made at the aggregate level, and this can be achieved through current aggregate financial returns. We are unclear what is to be gained from a person level return of this information, when it also increases the risk of breaching personal data rules.

We have always provided limited budget data because of the financial governance requirements around this and because of the capacity of finance team to provide individual budget cost for all our SDS clients. Providing both gross and net budgets would need to be led by our finance team, given the number of SDS clients we support and the current proposal for quarterly submission, then it is unlikely that our finance team would have the capacity to provide this information.


45

Question 11. Do you agree with this proposal to collect information on all people who have a community alarm/Telecare service? For a response of ‘no’ more detail was requested.

Answer yes - but needed box for commentary. How long after the period end would the return need to be submitted? - There can be a short time lag between the physical installation/removal of equipment and the recording of this activity on the system.

Our view is that Community Alarm and Telecare services should be separated for the purpose of this dataset. Telecare interventions are generally qualitatively different since they may be introduced at multiple times and often correlate with a period of greater frailty and challenge to an individual’s independence. In this context they are reflective of care pathways.

We have recently moved to a signposting process for those who would benefit from a community alarm. This means we no longer hold detail on the clients who have a community alarm. The data cannot be obtained from our chosen alarm supplier due to data protection. We can indicate the number of individuals with alarm but will have no client details which would link to any other information. We are working to have a direct referral for telecare service however at present the information on these services is limited or unavailable. Whilst we agree with the proposal to collect start and end date for an alarm service we are unable to supply this information due to the method of service provision chosen.

Question12. Do you agree with this proposal to collect the end date of the community alarm/Telecare service? For a response of ‘no’ more detail was requested.

People can have multiple pieces of equipment and we would then have to submit data on the start and end date of all equipment being installed and removed which can all happen at different points in time. I don't think this is realistic and you would then need to report on different types of equipment being in place and it would be too complex.

Whilst we agree with the proposal to collect start and end date for an alarm service we are unable to supply this information due to the method of service provision chosen.

Question 13. Do you anticipate any problems with the home care hours being collected for each quarter?



c) Not feasible

Very time consuming in calculating quarterly hours for a weekly service, especially where there have been changes to the care plan. Also, some authorities use planned care hours whereas some use actual hours provided - consistent approach will be needed and guidance should be clearer.

New reports will have to be written as our data details care provided on a weekly basis, and this can change on a day to day basis. Total number of hours for a quarter will be challenging.

Resource issues. Volume of work involved in a full quarter's home care hours and the checking involved would have a significant impact.


46

Currently our Homecare reporting is split between internal and external and the collection of data differs for both elements. At the moment our HSCP has rolled out total mobile for internal homecarers, therefore we can get the majority of the data from the output reports. However, as total mobile is not yet rolled out to external providers (this is in process) then we are reliant on pulling data from our data management system as well as stand alone spreadsheets. Progress in this area will be reliant on a speedy roll out of total mobile to external agencies.

At this stage we are not scaled up to provide this level of information on a quarterly basis. Consideration requires to be given to the value of providing this information on a quarterly basis as it is unlikely to change significantly on a quarter by quarter basis.

Volume of type of data means extremely labour intensive and we do not have the resources available.

Staff resource and competing demands for quarterly performance reporting will be the main challenge. In addition the gathering, extracting, and interpretation of the data require manual intervention and therefore more resource intensive.

There is no problem in collecting the hours for the quarter but serious concerns remain around the calculation of the census week figure. Take for instance a service like Reablement where the hours per week is likely to vary during the intervention. If a 50% reduction in package size is achieved in a six week period, then taking the average weekly hours does not give the sensitivity to the dataset that is currently possible. Any ability to determine the average package size in a given week will be lost by only providing total hours delivered in a quarter. Accurate package size it vital to give an accurate profile of the service. Clarity is required over planned/actual hours are being submitted, for example, we know that external providers are not invoicing for all planned hours, however, we do not know the hours which are not being provided within the billing period, so planned hours are different from actual hours and this should be clear in the returns being submitted.

Levels of service can change for individuals and therefore we would need to submit an entry for each service user for each time their service levels changed. This will make for a large submission each quarter. I would be interested to see the actual submission spreadsheet to see how this would work in practice.

Collecting homecare for whole year or quarter instead of census week and having the data submission dates so close after service delivery will be difficult. This will result in us using planned rather than actual service and using only mainstream homecare. We previously included care at home supplied through supported accommodation however, this is not recorded in the same way and required manual checks on service for the census week. We will not be able to provide this for a full quarter. Therefore, these hours will not be included.

This would appear to be the most ambitious of the proposals. For the Social Care Survey we have reported a snapshot week of activity and, not without difficulty, we have been able to consistently report within that context. Moving to a reporting of all home care through a period becomes extremely problematic given the dynamic of multiple service episodes, involving multiple providers in different sectors, over a period when there are multiple individual variances in both planned and actual hours delivered to a service user. Items 4.8 (Multi Staff) and 4.10 (Reablement) could not be reported simply over the quarter period. Further definition and clarification of when is being referred to would be required.

We can provide information on ordered hours, but the delivered hours can vary on a week to week basis, and this information is held by an external organisation separately. Variations relating to charging may be recorded as part of the financial information, but may not be reflected in the ordered hours figures.

We can’t report on actual hours at present, would be planned hours using home care service agreements. This would also capture changes in services/planned hours within the


47

reporting period. However may not capture clients in hospital not receiving home care as records remain open to ensure continuity of service.

I do not feel the current proposal is feasible for the reasons stated in question 1. Additionally the Service End Date is an optional data item within the SCS guidance however for a complete historical service lookback submission, end dates would need to be mandatory. This brings in further issues, however as there is a particular issue currently hindering the submission of homecare data via SOURCE. Currently the globalscape submissions do not accept rows of homecare data that contain duplicated data: identical social care ids, homecare service provider, Homecare Type, and homecare start date. Data of this nature is commonplace for us because clients will often receive services that start on the same day but are provided by two different providers, thus producing two separate records on our management information systems. At the moment it is a hugely time consuming manual task to combine these two entries into a single row for the submission through globalscape. It would be of significant benefit if a globalscape IT solution could be found to so that duplicate entries as described above were accepted.

Question 14. Do you anticipate any problems with the discontinuation of these sections?

a. No issues b. Issues with respite c. Issues with day care d. Issues with both e. Don’t know

If b-d: Please explain why you think this is and which section this relates to:

Respite - won't be a particular issue if data is to be included in the care home return. Useful measure of individual level of need.

You will be missing supports that people go to regarding social isolisation and possible meals and personal care.

Would data on respite and day care not be needed? Now that neurological conditions will be included in the data, I think it would be good to get data on the numbers using respite and day centres.

Respite and day care are core functions for providing short term support within the community. The inclusion of this dataset would be helpful in the future planning of service provision.

We would record this information within our systems and report within SDS information, although concerned about definitions this does not reflect modern practice day opportunities/short breaks.


48

Question 15. How well does the proposed new Source Social Care Dataset meet your current data needs?

a. Yes, it meets all of our current data needs b. Yes, it meets most of our current data needs c. Yes, it meets some of our current data needs d. No, it does not meet our current data needs e. Don’t know


Not sure, will be clearer when we see outputs. The dataset is very comprehensive. Have not received this information as yet. We would need to see the outputs and how well the Social Care data could be linked to

Health data. Our 2016 data submission did not progress as expected, we are working with our LIST

representative to resolve outstanding issues. Data is collected and submitted but information is not available until approximately 6-9

months later. As the Health and Social Care Partnership evolves the requirement for robust timely data is crucial.

It currently does not collect data on those using social care with autism. Individuals with autism are invisible in this dataset. It is difficult to evidence those in receipt of social care for those impacted by autism.

This will be a major step forward in terms of potential data integration the extent to which it meets need depends on the analysis of the data provided.

As data providers we are not able to comment. As we do not have a full dataset we are unable to see or utilise the full potential of this

resource. Continuity of the existing social care dataset is very important. The timeseries that exists

currently is of great use and covers a long period giving a super insight to home care provision in Scotland over the last 20 years. The current proposals will not allow this timeseries to be continued as well as producing data that are not reflective of a typical week. Consultation on proposed publication/datasets is required. We are still awaiting access to individual level records on Source.

Work is undertaken locally using the dataset to build information and link data through local agreement. There are some concerns surrounding what information will be provided and how quickly.

Will have to evaluate when made available. Current needs are met locally. Provision of timeous data is particularly important for Committee purposes (as opposed to data a number of months old).

Would need a senior management response to this question. Data may not be as accurate when it is collected so close to period end date. There will

not be enough time for systems to be updated. The customer category lists do not include Autism as a separate category.

We can only answer for Children's services, and already provide an integrated service with supporting data.

Spreadsheet of potential updates can be provided.


49

The proposed dataset seems to be a hybrid and seeks too much information at an individual service level. Some of the data items - and especially finance related items – seem more appropriate for aggregate returns, such as LFR. In addition, too much detail is being sought in Home Care services which are highly susceptible to dynamic changes in service hours over a from - to period. This should be avoided and a much simpler option taken, for example, the number of hours at the end of a reporting period. The data proposals regards Self-directed Support seem misinformed about the nature of SDS. SDS is a method of delivery of a wide range of social care services, each of which will have its own attributes in terms of SDS option and amount of service. These services will also start, stop and change during every from - to period. A snapshot would be simpler at the end of a reporting period and this is more likely to provide comparative data for different local authorities/Health & Social Care Partnerships. Most importantly the dataset proposed can only meet some of our data needs if it delivers reliable comparative data from local authorities and a national average comparator for the data.

We do not use the current Social Care Data return locally. We have other reports we use for performance, financial and operational management and strategic planning.

1. The data we will be providing quarterly is available to us at any point we require it. The benefit from the data will come from the ability to compare it to other local authorities or merge it with NHS data to provide an overall view of the Health and Social Care services within one area and across Scotland. Having the ability to compare with other similar authorities can provide an insight into variation in service provision and best practice / process redesign which improves specific outcomes and offers efficiency savings. Until we are able to see this information it is unknown how this meets our needs/future needs. 2. Whilst we are able to provide the majority of the data requested on the Proposed Revised Source Summary Sheet V1.A it is the integrity and spread of the data over multiple system which can be time consuming to extract and collate. We would normally extract and work with small pieces of information as and when required for a particular purpose or comparison. Collection and collations of this range and volume of data is not a regular occurrence.

How do we feel the social care survey meets our current needs? This meets central needs and provides some ability to join data and benchmarking. Value will come from clear definitions and consistent recording across Scotland.

If this refers to the guidance documentation they yes, in principle the data set meets our needs. For the social care survey the guidance data set documents had been written in Microsoft word on a landscape background in sectioned format. This made the guidance notes, clear, easy to follow and print friendly. The current data set you have provided in excel, is not quite as clear or as easy to follow and suspect will not print well. For the purpose of national returns a very clear and concise document is required in order that there is common understanding across all partnerships. If this relates to the data needs of the Partnership, obviously this is our Partnerships data and we have local processes in relation to the provision of performance management information for local, operational strategic, and planning purposes which will continue to be the priority for this HSCP to undertake, rather than being reliant on a national SOURCE information output process.


50

Question 16. How well does the proposed new Source Social Care Dataset meet your anticipated future data needs?

a. Yes, it meets all of our anticipated future data needs b. Yes, it meets most of our anticipated future data needs c. Yes, it meets some of our anticipated future data needs d. No, it does not meet our anticipated future data needs e. Don’t know


Not sure, will be clearer when we see outputs. At the moment the data collection seems fine, I'm not sure what we will be looking at in the

future. Have not received this information as yet. We would need to see the outputs and how well the Social Care data could be linked to

Health data. Our 2016 data submission did not progress as expected, we are working with our LIST

representative to resolve outstanding issues. Elements of the information are useful. However much of the data is process oriented and

does not reflect health and social care outcomes. The reporting is focused on inputs rather than outcomes.

I need clarification on whether autism will be collected separate or along with other neurological conditions.

This will be a major step forward in terms of potential data integration the extent to which it meets need depends on the analysis of the data provided.

As data providers we are not able to comment. As we do not have a full dataset we are unable to see or utilise the full potential of this

resource. Despite stating the continuation of a timeseries is desirable in responding to question 15,

there is a need for a review of the Social Care publication. With the implementation of Self-directed support, the way services are provided has changed, and continues to change. For example the increase in the number of hours of home care provided is increasing more slowly, but with additional increases being seen in Direct Payment and Individual Service Fund provision. However, the proposal is presumably to continue providing headline figures in terms of hours. The ability for the data to be linked is attractive, however, this has already been achieved with the Health, Social Care and Housing linked dataset. Resources have not allowed greater analysis, but a proof of concept was carried out to investigate dementia recording within the HSPC. By looking at admission data and prescribing information alongside social care data that had been submitted it was possible to identify the scale of under-recording of dementia diagnosis in the social care cohort. The ability to link these and other data for analytical purposes should be retained. Consultation on proposed publication/datasets is required. We are still awaiting access to individual level records on Source. There would be great benefit in receiving back linked data where this would improve client and patient outcomes. This is not proposed; appropriate data sharing agreements need to be developed to allow authorities and partnerships access to data.

Previously raised - There are elements of the dataset and the cares census that could be merged. It would be helpful if ot is was possible to provide information back to the HSCP surrounding the "Cared for" portion of the Census. There is a risk that one or both census


51

will be negatively impacted s a result of overlap of data request/requirements. There is no mention of collection of Learning Disabilities information which was mentioned previously for inclusion within the dataset.

Will have to evaluate when made available. Current needs are met locally. Provision of timeous data is particularly important for Committee purposes (as opposed to data a number of months old).

Would need a senior management response to this question. Autism should be included as a separate customer category on its own not under "other

vulnerable groups". "Acquired Brain Injury" is included in the guidance in two separate groups "Other vulnerable groups" and "Neurological conditions excluding Dementia".

It's not clear at this point in time what value to Children's Services this data will provide. This is a great start for collection and linkages of data. Learning and agility to input future

revisions will help support modelling of future services. Most importantly the dataset proposed can only meet some of our data needs if it delivers

reliable comparative data from local authorities and a national average comparator for the data.

The new version of the social care return doesn’t offer anything substantially different that will benefit us, however the linkage with Health data may offer benefits which we are not yet aware of. ISD/local LIST resources could potentially play a role in helping us understand the potential benefits once they become more developed and integrated into local partnerships.

1. The data we will be providing quarterly is available to us at any point we require it. The benefit from the data will come from the ability to compare it to other local authorities or merge it with NHS data to provide an overall view of the Health and Social Care services within one area and across Scotland. Having the ability to compare with other similar authorities can provide an insight into variation in service provision and best practice / process redesign which improves specific outcomes and offers efficiency savings. Until we are able to see this information it is unknown how this meets our needs/future needs. 2. Whilst we are able to provide the majority of the data requested on the Proposed Revised Source Summary Sheet V1.A it is the integrity and spread of the data over multiple system which can be time consuming to extract and collate. We would normally extract and work with small pieces of information as and when required for a particular purpose or comparison. Collection and collations of this range and volume of data is not a regular occurrence.

Difficult to answer, if it means data is linked and we can access info via tableau then it may meet at least some of our anticipated needs. Currently undertaking significant service and pathway redesign until this is concluded cannot fully comment.

If this refers to the guidance documentation they yes, in principle the data set meets our needs. For the social care survey the guidance data set documents had been written in Microsoft word on a landscape background in sectioned format. This made the guidance notes, clear, easy to follow and print friendly. The current data set you have provided in excel, is not quite as clear or as easy to follow and suspect will not print well. For the purpose of national returns a very clear and concise document is required in order that there is common understanding across all partnerships. If this relates to the data needs of the Partnership, obviously this is our Partnerships data and we have local processes in relation to the provision of performance management information for local, operational strategic, and planning purposes which will continue to be the priority for this HSCP to undertake, rather than being reliant on a national SOURCE information output process.


52

Question 17. If you have any other comments on the proposals for the new Source Social Care data collection, please provide them here:

It would be useful to have outputs created and published for authorities for monitoring purposes on a consistent basis, with comparisons to other authorities as necessary - for monitoring and strategic planning purposes only. Clearer technical guidance and simplified uploading processes would be beneficial.

There needs to be recognition that there are a number of competing reporting priorities in light of integration: MSG monthly monitoring; monitoring of winter pressure; unscheduled care reporting; Scottish Government reporting requirements including the new Carers return and the additional reporting requirements for the CLAS return; implementation of DAISy; AHP reporting; and the HSCP's public reporting requirements and our provision of management information across all services within the HSCP. All of the above are being carried out by the same small team who are also responsible for the development, maintenance and staff support of our CareFirst system, and Freedom of Information requests, Complaints and Subject Access Requests. Given these additional added responsibilities, within the team we effectively have the equivalent of 1.5 member of staff covering all of the performance data.

We have unresolved issues with our 2016 submission, we understand there are limitations on data uploads to the datamart, we are currently working with our LIST representative to resolve these issues. We would hope for some negotiation on the mandatory/optional fields, given the limitations of submission to the datamart.

Question 9 - additional text Changes will be required to our data systems. This will result in training for staff which will require to be rolled out across locality teams. Backdating information would not be possible therefore 2018/19 would be a more realistic timescale. Question 10 - additional text Fundamentally the Council agrees that reporting gross and net is the correct thing to do. However this cannot be collated from our IT system as it currently stands. It will therefore be critical that IT developments currently proposed are developed and implemented. There will be other IT developments required in order to be able to report on the new data set. Question 12 - additional text There would be a level of work required with our 3rd party provider and information would not be available for the coming year. Other comments: Some of the information which is being requested as mandatory is not currently gathered, for example, housing type is not currently provided and therefore this may present a challenge. IoRN score is not recorded. Reablement – all new home care referrals are automatically routed through Supporting your Independence with exception of end of life care. Do all organisations follow same process in relation to reablement – would comparisons be feasible?

I'd like clarity on whether the new social care data will collect data on autism and what will be collected.

For some of the mandatory questions, "unknown" will be our response where we do not hold the data. However, you have a mandatory question regarding Type of Housing which does not give the option of "unknown". We would not be able to provide this information. With regard to SDS Gross and Net Budgets, we are unable to determine how much of a person's budget is Option 1, 2 or 3. We can only provide one gross and one net overall budget amount. However, where a person is in receipt of ILF, we would be unable to calculate the net budget as we do not hold information on the amount of ILF the client receives. We only record whether or not they are in receipt of ILF but not the amount received. Clarification needed on what is mandatory and what is optional with SDS Net and Gross Values (typos in "Proposed Revised Source Dataset October 2017 V4"?)

In the current climate of diminishing resources in local authorities quadrupling the number of returns required is going to present a challenge for local authorities. By necessity of


53

capacity, different elements of the Source returns are completed by different staff. Having only one demographic set of data provides problems in ensuring that all clients are included in that one set as this has to be complete prior to the submission of other datasets. This would continue to present a problem. As currently we have concerns over the quality of the data for those living alone and are unable to complete sections on the type of housing and housing support. In the past proposals have been made to incorporate the Learning Disability Survey into the Social Care Survey. How will this be taken forward in these proposals? Further to question 9: Presently specific conditions are recorded in health features on a person’s record. We know this is poorly recorded. Client categories are recorded in a separate field, which does not include neurological conditions. Is there any possibility that ISD can link this from health records where recording is likely to be more accurate? It is possible that we could start recording this information from some point in 2018-19, but further discussion with the team that maintain the system and staff is required. This could not be achieved by April 2018.

Why was a separate document to update the guidance sent to other people and is not to be informing the consultation? Having not seen any linked data it is hard to see if doing this is worthwhile or not. Increased workload on the team will require extra resources but having not seen any linked data to present to management it will be difficult to convince them to support a request for additional resources. LDSS Data set which was to be included in the Social Care Survey is not included in the Source data set. Where is it now to be submitted?

Timescales - current return target date for Submission is end of July. SOURCE want first submission for full year to be done by end of May. Finance details will not be up to date then. Are there any legal implications on submitting finance information before it is complete? In addition, it is submitted as the same time as the LDSS return so there will be difficulties completing to these timescales. The Social Work Support question, in the SG return this question was designed to get details on customer with low levels of support. If this comes out, we will likely lose people who just have an allocation to a team but none of the named services so this will include people with day care and possibly Learning Disability and Mental health cases who have allocations but none of the named services. Homecare is now to be full service for calendar year or quarter. For this we will have to do planned service rather than actual service as it will be too complicated to calculate all the variances. We may not be able to include homecare provided to customers in supported accommodation, as this is not recorded in the same way. The Social Care return through ProcXed gave automatic data tidying. Which made it easier to check before submission. Published, interactive tables were available to compare performance with other authorities and to refer members of the public, e.g. people enquiring through FOI’s. ASD - again ASD is not listed as a customer category it is included under "Other Vulnerable Groups" however most of the conditions under "Other Vulnerable Groups" are temporary conditions like; homelessness, refugees etc. ASD is a lifelong condition, which requires a clinical diagnosis. There is a Scottish Government Strategy on Autism and we have a local strategy. If SOURCE is intended to give information to inform Scottish Government strategies, it will not have the information on autism unless this is listed as a separate category.)

The Council has an integrated Health, Social Care and Education service for children. NHS board provide an integrated Health and Social Care service for adults, and they will provide a separate response to this survey.

Through the Telecare Improvement Tool, we see variables of uptake and discontinuation of service throughout the year. These can be linked to a variety of things such as national, local and seasonal initiatives, holiday periods and weather. It would be helpful to have a national quarterly return to analyse some of these variables to identify common themes to


54

support predictive operational requirements. This could allow for staffing and equipment to flex and accommodate fluctuations in services. A quarterly return would be very useful to get a more holistic picture of use. Q5. Through the Data Action Group and TEC partnership working, we are exploring ways to automate some of the data capture via Telecare ARC and linkages with citizen identification. This in time will ease the burden on organisations time. Q6. It would be important to reflect the increase attention Telecare Services has attracted with the younger age demographic through the reprovision of Sleepover Services in the past 18 months. We anticipate a growth of services in this younger population as these types of technologies will be culturally more acceptable rather than introduced at transition points such as child to adult services. Small uptake of epilepsy sensors and other monitoring devices would be worth capturing to determine areas for development and growth therefore I would be keen to extend this age demographic to birth. Q10: Agree - SDS does not currently record usage of telecare services. HSCPs are reporting an increase usage of telecare response services to provide toileting and basic care for those in receipt of care packages and this is not captured, recorded or costed. If a care package is inclusive of telecare services this needs to be included as a component of the overall care package. Q11: YES – this is important to understand length of Telecare provision and turnover, which provides a better reflection of actual usage of service. The recent Deloittes report analysis shows that turnover of users has an important impact on the benefit to cost ratio of investment. The challenge of the social care summary is it is a snap shot – and the turnover aspect it difficult to quantify. The UoS found that even at a local level the time lag on updating when a user is decommissioned and the tech is recommissioned was not timely or consistent. Q12. YES – interrogation of the length of time people received telecare will provide some key intelligence to model best practice. Yes – very important to allow us to do deeper analysis. FINAL COMMENTS: Learning from both the Telecare Improvement Tool and the Telecare Benchmarking pilot has indicated the need to refine and standardise the way in which data for telecare is collected. There is considerable variation across HSCPs as to the collation of data due to a wide range of legacy systems as well as local interpretation of definitions. This change process provides a key opportunity to address this and through consultation with the Telecare Data Action Group offer a platform to support and inform this transition. Automation needs to be supported by both industry and HSCPs to minimise the pressure felt locally to provide large manual time-consuming data sets. Working and investing time with HSCPs and industry needs to be a priority development area to deliver our requirements in a more cost effective and standardised way. Benefits of visualisation have been explored with SCS Telecare data and Strathclyde University. The output from this small introductory piece of work has demonstrated how data usage and adoption could be increased through providing it in an accessible format. Telecare and community alarm – we need to be consistent in our terminology and definition as there is a wide variance as to both these terms. Open data frameworks – future development? There remains a disparity around people with services such as homecare, meals on wheels etc who are not in receipt of Telecare services. This is a missed opportunity to integrate technology at an early point in a preventative approach as opposed to being reactive in a crisis. Deloittes report identifies the length of time telecare is used provides greater benefits to the system, backing up the idea of early intervention. Linkage and analysis of data sets would be worthwhile to demonstrate and draw out areas of improvement.

I am concerned that this attempt to combine the SOURCE and Social Care Survey is being rushed and that this may result in an unsatisfactory social care dataset being established which ends up being of very limited value due to the likelihood that the national data will be incomparable. The key benefit to local authorities/HSC Partnerships in any data collection of this kind is the ability to see comparable data from other local


55

authorities/HSCPs. However there is also a strong risk that the rush to produce a national draft dataset does not allow sufficient time to establish a dataset that is clear and meaningful. It is our impression that the draft dataset and the definitions provided for this show a lack of understanding of the nature of some of the social care services involved - and this impacts on some of the specific data items being suggested. Some examples are given below, but the key point is that the draft dataset as proposed seems to be hugely over-ambitious in its scope. I would suggest that the dataset needs to be re-considered on a much more simplified basis. Not to do so risks creating a complicated and potentially uncollectable set of incomparable data from different local authorities/HSCPs. 1. The data item Client has Social Worker in Section 2 illustrates the problem of reporting data in this proposed dataset that may be straight-forward on a snapshot basis as at a single date, but which is much more difficult to report over a specified period of time (e.g. quarterly reporting period). So to say whether or not there was an allocated worker over a period of time is complex. This is because over a from – to period such as a quarter, the service user’s allocation status may change from closed to pending to open. In addition, different local authorities have different types of case status and some will treat service users who are in receipt of services as open, while others may operate on an assessment/review basis that means their case status may switch between open or allocated to pending and back to open/allocated. This makes it complex and difficult to decide how to report this over a from – to period unless decisions are made about whether the client has a social worker at any time during the period or at the end of the period. The point is on a snapshot basis this can be done but on a from – to basis different local authorities will have different ways of managing cases and this will be reflected in the reported data, which will not be comparable. 2. The proposals re Self Directed Support in Section 3 appear to over-simplify the SDS process as the guidance reads as though SDS is a single service type rather than a method of choosing how SDS services will be directed by the service user. This view results in a request for a Start Date and end date for SDS which is not meaningful, since SDS Support may involve a range of different services with different start and end dates each of which may involve a different choice of SDS options. While this data is easy to provide for a snapshot date, it is much more complex to provide over a from – to period due to the volume of different services and the changes in each service that may occur within one reporting period. Paradoxically however, the request for financial data on an individual client basis in the SDS Section 3 seems to over-complicate the dataset. For example, by proposing the reporting of financial data in the form of Net/Gross values for services under SDS Options 1, 2 and 3 for each service user. This seems like a mistake as such data is surely more relevant at an aggregated level of analysis rather than at an individual client basis. This, together with the complications arising from the fact that service users may be receiving a range of different services over the from – to period make the challenge of capturing this data unrealistic at best. In a from – to period a service user could change from receiving a service such as home care from in-house providers to external providers and change the SDS option number for this same service over a single quarterly period. It really does not make sense to try to track such dynamic changes in services in any from – to reporting period at an individual service user level. 3. Section 4 Home Care seems to be over-ambitious in seeking too much detail about the home care service for the national dataset. Home Care is one of the most complex services in social care. It is a dynamic service that can change for an individual service user multiple times in any from – to reporting period. The number of home care hours can change; in some local authorities home care provision can be shared between in-house and external providers for a period of time; the service provider can change from in-house to external provider; the service can stop on a temporary basis and re-start due to respite care or hospitalisation. The planned service hours for the service user may be very different to the


56

actual hours delivered (and the extent of this variance can vary between in-house and external providers) On a snapshot basis it is much easier to report what the service attributes are, but over time the changes make this very difficult to report. This means some local authorities are reporting data based on their own unique judgements about how best to supply the data including averaging etc. But the upshot is that we end up without comparable data from different local authorities. 4. In Section 4 the combination community alarms and Telecare is problematic. These need to be separated as they are different types of service. Telecare in particular is defined as if it is a single service type when in fact it consists of a wide range of different telecare service support solutions which may change, be augmented and start and stop over a single reporting period. Again a simpler data reporting process is required for a national dataset. 5. The Care Home Section 6 is also complicated with temporary/respite placements starting and subsequently becoming permanent and thereby creating problems with different admission dates and also stop dates which may not be the same as Discharge dates. Funding types are also variable and so can the contributions change over time for a range of reasons. In addition, local authorities will not have detailed information on self-funded clients in Care Homes. There is also the cross-boundary placement issue. It would seem best to avoid data items relating to finance at an individual service user level in terms of items 6.10, 6.11 and 6.12. In conclusion, a number of local authorities are already struggling to supply data for the SOURCE dataset. To hurriedly combine that dataset with the Social Care Survey dataset needs much greater care to be given over deciding on the content of a replacement national dataset. I would propose that this attempt to rush to agree a joint SOURCE/Social Care Survey national dataset should therefore not be pursued. Instead, more time should be given to develop a national dataset that is meaningful and collectible and also comparable for the benefit of all stakeholders. The current proposals need considerably more work to be done, and further consultation to be carried out if they are to be meaningful and collectible by local authorities/HSCP’s. A national dataset should also have a sense of ownership of the dataset by the stakeholders supplying the data. Without this it is hard to see how a coherent and meaningful national dataset will be achieved in the short timescale being proposed for this national dataset.

A lot of uncertainties remain in relation to the data definitions, and the consultation requires to be completed. All of this makes an implementation timescale of April 2018 very challenging, particularly given the proposal to capture data from 2017/18. There may need to be a phased implementation and a review of the mandatory element. Enforcing this timescale and the current dataset may mean partnerships will be unable to provide the requested data. There still seems to be a lack of co-ordination across SG/ISD in relation to the range of returns, and different requirements and codes in different care groups. It also seems that opportunities have been missed to include other data sets. We would have expected to have the benefits of this approach outlined from the beginning and work undertaken with partnerships to demonstrate both the practicalities and the benefits. Other partnerships raised concerns about the lack of data linkage despite providing data for several years, so there are concerns about the amount of effort required against return at a time of diminishing resources. There have also been some technical concerns raised about the uploading of data and the lack of data verification tools (compared to ProcXed).

Some specific points were raised at the recent meeting in the Teacher Building, including feedback on client groupings and recording of ‘budget’ information which doesn’t relate to how our budget information is held (or might be in the future) – either through the named budgets or the implied age grouping for each one. Please consider phased approach to implementation as concerned about late timescales. Concern about growing requirements for data collection from multiple sources impacting on support services and front line practice at time of resource constraint and move to have more person centred practice –


57

focusing on what is important to the individual not the organisation. Additional feedback on qu9: Full data for 17 /18 will not be available. Although we can add the extra category now, any change in practice takes time to embed and would mean a partial return for 17/18. Additional feedback on qu10: At this point we can do this, however we are in process of redesigning our SDS and individual budget processes. Until this is approved by IJB we’re unable to confirm agreement with the above. Additional feedback on qu11:Information will be taken from our social care information system not community alarm data base

The benefits of moving Social Care data to SOURCE are still not clear to the HSCP. Despite previously submitting Social Care data to SOURCE many seem not to have seen or be aware of any joined up outputs. We would have some concern this would continue to be the case and the resource burden seems to vastly outweigh any local, operational, strategic or planning benefits for the HSCP. The SOURCE submission is being marketed nationally as a positive step forward with the focus on partnerships no longer having to submit to SG, when the reality for data suppliers is that we are being asked to undertake more work. This does not seem to be fully understood or recognised during the recent consultation events or locally by senior managers within HSCP. Timescales for implementation seem ambitious – the Information Sharing Agreement issue alone in my view needs a dedicated work stream, given the imminence of GDPR. Recent experience of this identified that consent to share information must be more explicitly explained to and sought from service users. Local systems and processes may need to be enhanced and adapted to capture and facilitate this which will take time. Financial data needs specific consideration – eg financial governance around this information, however this may depend on the frequency and timescales of submissions. Resourcing and capacity to undertake such a significantly increased task was a recurring theme at consultation events. A complete homecare submission is seeming an undoable task, however some partnership have already or could supply a whole year’s worth of information. The common concern is that this is a full time task in its own right and that partnerships have not been offered any additional resourcing to undertake this. In reality the local information resources are being squeezed and some of this will be (I suspect) as a result of IJBs heralding the services of national resources, where ISD have promised to deliver national programmes of information collection (ie SOURCE/LIST). It seems clear ISD cannot do this without the buy in of local partnership information and intelligence teams, something recently acknowledged in the latest MSG for H&SC Integration communication. Could some of this national resource be deployed directly into the partnerships, to directly support the delivery of the SOURCE submissions across SC and Health? Additional comment from Question 9: Neurological condition is not currently an option within our management information system for choosing a client group. However this could be added as an option and we could report on from 2018-19. Note that the numbers submitted with this code would be small as it would only apply to new clients.


58

Appendix 3 – Summary Source Social Care Dataset

Section 1: Demographics

1.1 Social Care ID 1.2 CHI Number

1.3 Surname 1.4 Forename

1.5 Postcode 1.6 Date of Birth (DoB)

1.7 Gender 1.8 Ethnic Group

Section 2: Client Information

2.1 Financial Year 2.2 Financial Quarter

2.3 Client/Service User Group 2.4 Living Alone

2.5 Support from an Unpaid Carer 2.6 Client has Social Worker

2.7 Housing Support 2.8 Type of Housing

2.9 Meals 2.10 Day Care

Section 3: Self Directed Support


3.3 SDS Option(s) 3.4 SDS Start Date

3.5 SDS End Date (where applicable) 3.6 SDS Contribution

3.7 SDS Needs 3.8 SDS Support

3.9 Net Value SDS 1 3.10 Net Value SDS 2

3.11 Net Value SDS 3 3.12 Gross Value SDS 1

3.13 Gross Value SDS 2 3.14 Gross Value SDS 3

3.15 Net Value TOTAL 3.16 Gross Value TOTAL

Section 4: Home Care/Reablement


4.3 Home Care Service Provider 4.4 Home Care Service

4.5 Home Care Service Start Date 4.6 Home Care Service End Date

4.7 Hours Received 4.8 Multi-Staff Input

4.9 Home Care Service Provision Budget

4.10 Reablement

4.11 Reablement Service Provision Budget


59

Section 5: Community Alarms and Telecare


5.3 Service Start Date 5.4 Service End Date

5.5 Service Type 5.6 Service Provision Budget

Section 6: Care Home


6.3 Care Home Name 6.4 Care Home Postcode

6.5 Care Home Provider 6.6 Care Home Admission Date

6.7 Care Home Discharge Date 6.8 Reason for Admission

6.9 Nursing Care Provision 6.10 Funding Type

6.11 Local Authority Contribution 6.12 Service Provision Budget

Section 7: IoRN


7.3 IoRN Group 7.4 Date of IoRN Group

*Note: Social Care ID is shown as 1.1 above but it should be understood that the Social Care ID has

to be present on all six sections submitted.


60

Appendix 4– Codes and Values

Proposed SourceSC dataset

For validation: M = Mandatory, O = Optional, C = Conditional (as described SDS section of the report)

SECTION 1 ‐ Demographics M/O/C Data Item Code Value

M Social Care ID/Unique ID O CHI M Surname

M Forename M Postcode M Date of Birth M Gender 0 Not known

1 Male

2 Female

9 Not specifiedM Ethnic Group

SECTION 2 ‐ Client Information M/O/C Data Item Code Value

M Social Care ID M Financial Year M Financial Quarter M Client/Service User Group Dementia

Mental Health

Learning Disability

Physical Sensory Disability

Drugs

Alcohol

Palliative Care

Carer

Elderly/Frail

Neurological condition (exc Dementia) Autism

Other Vulnerable Groups

Not Recorded

M Living Alone 0 No

1 Yes

9 Not Known

M Support from an Unpaid Carer 0 No

1 Yes

9 Not Known M Client has social worker 0 No

1 Yes

9 Not Known


61

M Housing Support 0 No

1 Yes

9 Not Known

M Type of Housing 1 Mainstream

2 Supported

3 Long Stay Care Home

4 Hospital or Other Medical Establishment 5 Other

6 Not Known

M Meals 0 No

1 Yes

9 Not Known

M Day Care 0 No

1 Yes

9 Not Known

SECTION 3 ‐ Self Directed Support

M/O/C Data Item Code Value

M Social Care ID M Financial Year M Financial Quarter M SDS Options

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

M SDS Start Date SDS End Date (where applicable)

M SDS Contribution Social Work

Housing

Independent Living

Health

Client

Other

Not Known

M SDS Needs Personal Care

Health Care

Domestic Care

Housing Support

Social, Educational, Recreational Equipment and Temporary Adaptations Respite

Meals

Other

Not Known

O SDS Support PA Contract

Local Authority

Private


62

Voluntary

Other

Not Known

C Net Value SDS 1 C Net Value SDS 2 C Net Value SDS 3 C Gross Value SDS 1 C Gross Value SDS 2 C Gross Value SDS 3

C Net Value Total

C Gross Value Total

SECTION 4 ‐ Home Care / Reablement


M Social Care ID M Financial Year M Financial Quarter

M Home Care Service Provider 1Local Authority/Health & Social Care Partnership/HB

2 Private

3 Other Local Authority

4 Third Sector

5 Other

M Home Care Service 1 Non‐Personal Care

2 Personal Care

M Home Care Service Start Date O Home Care Service End Date M Hours Received O Multi‐staff Input 0 No

1 Yes ‐ for less than half the visits made

2 Yes ‐ for half or more than half of the visits made

9 Not Known

O Home Care Service Provision Budget

1 Children and Families

2 Older Persons

3 Clients with Physical or Sensory Disabilities

4 Clients with Learning Disabilities

5 Clients with Mental Health Needs

6 Clients with Other Needs

O Reablement 0 No

1 Yes

9 Not Known

O Reablement Service Provision Budget

1 Children and Families

2 Older Persons

3 Clients with Physical or Sensory Disabilities

4 Clients with Learning Disabilities


63

5 Clients with Mental Health Needs

6 Clients with Other Needs

SECTION 5 ‐ Community Alarms and Telecare


M Social Care ID M Financial Year M Financial Quarter M Service Start Date M Service End Date M Service Type 1 Community Alarms

2 Telecare

O Service Provision Budget 1 Children and Families

2 Older Persons3 Clients with Physical or Sensory Disabilities

4 Clients with Learning Disabilities 5 Clients with Mental Health Needs 6 Clients with Other Needs

SECTION 6 ‐ Care Home M/O/C Data Item Code Value

M Social Care ID M Financial Year M Financial Quarter O Care Home Name M Care Home Postcode

M Care Home Provider 1 Local Authority/Health & Social Care 2 Private

3 Other Local Authority

4 Third Sector (includes Voluntary) 5 NHS Board

6 Other

M Care Home Admission Date M Care Home Discharge Date O Reason for Admission 1 Respite

2Intermediate Care (includes Step Up/Step Down)

3 Emergency

4 Palliative Care/End of Life Care 5 Dementia

6 Elderly (includes Elderly Mentally Infirm) 7 Learning Disabilities

8 High Dependency

9 Choice

10 Other

M Nursing Care Provision 0 No

1 Yes


64

O Funding Type 1 Free Nursing Care

2 Free Personal Care

3 Free Nursing and Personal Care O Local Authority Contribution O Service Provision Budget 1 Children and Families

2 Older Persons

3 Clients with Physical or Sensory Disabilities 4 Clients with Learning Disabilities 5 Clients with Mental Health Needs 6 Clients with Other Needs

SECTION 7‐ IoRN M/O/C Data Item Code Value

M Social Care ID M Financial Year M Financial Quarter O IoRN Group

O Date of IoRN Group

source social care consultation report · data provision (questions 5 – question 7) questions 5-7...

Documents