Lincolnshire County Council: local authority assessment
Downloads
Overall summary
Lincolnshire County Council have requested a review of one or more of its ratings
Local authority rating and score
Quality statement scores
Summary of people's experiences
People’s experiences of accessing adult social care in Lincolnshire were mixed. Some people told us they found it difficult to access adult social care, for example, they found the referral process repetitive. If people requested an unscheduled review of their care this would need to go back through the Customer Service Centre and was then referred on to an assessment team. Scheduled reviews were carried out by a dedicated review team. People told us this sometimes caused confusion as to who was supporting them. The local authority told us that only unscheduled review requests required people to access the ‘front door’.
Assessments we reviewed evidenced strengths-based practice and people being given choice regarding their care and support. The local authority’s own survey data showed an overall satisfaction with assessment experience - average score of 8.45 out of 10.
The experience of unpaid carers was mainly positive; however, some carers told us that they had not received or been offered a carers assessment, and they told us they were unclear as to what support they could receive whilst carrying out their caring role. Feedback from unpaid carers who had received a carers’ assessment was positive. Unpaid carers told us they received their assessments and reviews in a timely manner to ensure their wellbeing whilst carrying out their caring role. Unpaid carers provided positive feedback about services to support their wellbeing, including grants to purchase items to improve their overall lives, and information to support them in their caring role.
People could not always access equipment and minor home adaptations to maintain their independence and continue living in their own homes. We heard how one person was unable to access the provision of equipment to support their care needs at home in a timely way, which led to them having to access a short-term residential placement until the equipment was in place at home, which was not their preference.
The provision of accessible information was not always available. People told us that it was not always easy to access the information they needed. Data reviewed corroborated this. The local authority was working with people with lived experience to improve accessibility.
People’s experiences of engaging in transitions to adult services were mixed. Several carers of young adults told us transition was difficult, whilst other people told us their assessment and transition process worked well.
The local authority demonstrated use of co-production to learn and improve practice; however, co-production was at different stages of maturity across the system. The local authority recognised the need to strengthen feedback loops to evidence impact. People involved in co-production told us they felt respected and listened to but were unclear as to what differences their conversations made to practice.
Summary of strengths, areas for development and next steps
Lincolnshire County Council knew itself well. There was positivity amongst staff, who told us they felt valued and motivated. Some teams had recently undergone a restructure or changes in responsibilities and feedback from staff regarding this was positive. Staff felt supported in their roles and were positive about training and opportunities to progress in their careers. There was a clear emphasis on staff well-being and equality in the workplace.
There had been significant changes in the senior leadership team (SLT) over the two years prior to our assessment, representing changes in the Director of Social Services (DASS) role, as well as at assistant director level. Feedback from staff was that leadership from the SLT was visible, and their approachable leadership style was positive. There was a clear understanding of social work practices, and their challenges amongst leaders. Leaders, managers, and staff demonstrated investment in strengths-based approaches, and there were examples of this throughout our assessment. Although it was identified, the consistency of strengths-based practice was yet to be fully embedded.
Data was valued across the organisation, and the local authority had invested in analytical capability, including creating a dedicated data scientist role to strengthen insight, modelling and local level analysis. Some longstanding challenges remained in the strategic use of data relating to system complexity and demand pressures. However, the local authority was using insight to inform programme level plans, including workforce, practice development, prevention and system working.
Prevention was a priority across the local authority and the local authority worked with people, partners and the local community to make available a range of services, facilities, resources and other measures to promote independence, and to prevent, delay or reduce the need for care and support. The percentage of people accessing reablement services following discharge from hospital was in line with national averages. Work was underway to embed earlier use of reablement. There were mixed experiences of access to equipment with people not always able to access equipment and minor home adaptations to maintain their independence in a timely way. There had been a significant system response to issues in equipment supply following business cessation of the contracted equipment provider, including the rapid implementation of contingency arrangements, the prioritisation of hospital discharges, and continued risk-based allocation of equipment to ensure people’s safety.
The local authority had established specialist teams and practitioner roles designed to meet the needs of people with more complex or distinct circumstances. This included dedicated provision for young people transitioning to adult services, people with a learning disability, and people with mental health needs. In addition, the local authority had specific arrangements in place for completing Care Act assessments for people within custodial settings in the local authority area. This meant people received assessments from staff who were knowledgeable about their needs and circumstances.
The local authority worked well with partners and the community and voluntary sector to prevent, reduce and delay needs and worked with partners to achieve shared outcomes. However, feedback from partners regarding the impact of partnership working was mixed. We heard how people’s discharge from hospital could sometimes be delayed due to issues with the provision of equipment and minor adaptations.
Feedback regarding transitions between children and adult services was inconsistent; with some people experiencing a smooth and person centred process and other people feeling their service had been stopped overnight or not having had support to coordinate their services. Leaders were aware of this and had made changes to the transition process. A ‘Preparation for Adulthood’ pathway, and a joint ‘Preparation for Adulthood’ team had been established. This team brought together workers from learning disability services and a smaller pilot ‘Physical Disability’ team.
There was good uptake of direct payments, and they were being used to improve people’s control about how their care and support needs are met. National data from the Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework (ASCOF 2024/25) showed 42.98% people accessing care received direct payments, which was significantly better than the England average of 24.51%.
We were told it could be difficult to source residential placements for some people, for example those with a complex learning disability or mental health needs. Some of those people were placed in accommodation outside of the local authority area, although in most cases those placements were close to the local authority border. Other people using services outside of the local authority area did so through personal choice.
Equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) was considered within practice, and work was ongoing to fully embed this. Most people we spoke with told us they felt included and understood, and their protected characteristics were identified and considered throughout their journey
The local authority’s insight and understanding about inequalities experienced by different groups within the area had improved. Leaders had recognised and responded to inequality in access to social care pathways, forming part of ongoing improvement and commissioning activity. Data trends showed stable or increasing access for working‑age adults, people with learning disabilities and people with mental health needs, alongside access by people from minority ethnic backgrounds broadly in line with local demography. There was continued work focused on addressing the causes and impact of inequality.
The local authority demonstrated use of co-production to learn and improve practice; however, co-production was at different stages of maturity across the system. People involved in co-production told us they felt respected and listened to but were unclear as to what differences their conversations made to practice. Staff and leaders understood the importance of gaining feedback from people with lived experience and including them in discussions and decision making. While co‑production activity was evident, the authority recognised there was more to do to consistently demonstrate and feedback the impact of this learning on practice, and work was underway to strengthen this.