Somerset Council: local authority assessment
Downloads
Overall summary
Local authority rating and score
Quality statement scores
Summary of people’s experiences
Feedback the local authority gathered after it had assessed people was mostly positive. Some people found it difficult to communicate with the local authority, and others reported they felt they had to fit into the services available rather than having choice and a flexible service offer. Some people had to wait a long time for an assessment, and there was little proactive review of people’s care.
Carers told us that it was not always clear to them that they had the right to a carers assessment and review, and many said they had not been supported with contingency planning. Feedback received was that although support from the carer’s community group was good, there was still a big focus on the person with care and support needs. For some carers, there was a long wait for a carer’s assessment, and they were not always completed at the same time as the Care Act assessment due to time pressure.
People talked about how helpful support had been in the community from village agents, who, for many people, were a point of first contact with social care, providing signposting to local services as well as support to understand the assessment process. People liked being able to access equipment and adaptations through their local community hub, but some had long waits for equipment if they needed a visit at home.
We heard there were mechanisms for people with lived experience to get involved in service planning, but many of the people we spoke with did not know about this. They said they would like to get more involved and had started to receive more contact from the local authority about how this could be achieved.
Summary of strengths, areas for development and next steps
Somerset Council were going through a process of improvement that had been supported initially by an external consultancy. This had helped the local authority improve governance arrangements and start a review of transitions between services. There was evidence that this had a supportive effect that was continuing to show progress. Leaders were clear about how they wished to start showing clearer outcomes of work and have a clearer line of sight to service performance and quality. Staff talked about change and were supportive of this.
Staff we spoke with felt well supported by the local authority and told us they had regular contact with leaders. Staff particularly praised the learning and development opportunities and clear pathways for people to progress in their careers. The local authority had worked to reduce its vacancies by undertaking international recruitment. Staff who came to the local authority from abroad had access to staff networks and specialist training and felt part of their teams.
All partners talked about positive relationships, and all were keen to grow links, including the neighbourhood model, to make it more of a consistent offer across Somerset. There had been a clear progression in partnership working, with all partners reporting a more open dialogue in recent years. The was a clear board structure to support change, and this was complemented by jointly funded projects which included mental health hubs.
There was a good market capacity for most residents in Somerset, and the local authority had a clear market management plan, which included trying to create capacity for people with specific needs like dementia. There was a good market of micro providers that supported provision in rural areas, as well as young adults in transition. This was also supported by a well-used direct payments service, that was trialling different ways to support people to increase uptake. There was also support for people who funded their own care to plan the care they needed now and in the future.
However, there were also areas where improvements were needed. Some people waited a long time for assessment, across all areas of provision. While there had been an improvement in the oversight of waits, triage of cases based on risk and increased activity to fill vacancies there were still some capacity issues which meant Care Act reviews were not completed in a timely manner and sometimes carers’ assessments were delayed.
The local authority did not have a clear view of who was receiving its services to ensure that these were provided equitably. There had been some work at a corporate level to improve oversight of needs, but this had been disrupted by a service restructure when Somerset became a unitary authority. There were pockets of good work that supported equity of access, including engagement with the Gypsy and Traveller community, and a race audit that the local authority had commissioned to reflect on its own practices. Work was needed to take a more strategic approach to equity in adult social care, and this included involving a broader range of people with lived experience in service planning and delivery.
Safeguarding enquiries were carried out sensitively and without delay, keeping the wishes and best interests of the person concerned at the centre. Making safeguarding personal was embedded in policy. However, some improvement was needed to ensure all safeguarding concerns received were actioned appropriately to ensure people were safeguarded. The local authority used the Somerset Safeguarding Risk Assessment tool, developed by the Safeguarding Adults Board. This had resulted in a drop in the number of safeguarding concerns raised being passed through for further review under the safeguarding process. A lack of consistency in recording decisions about whether a safeguarding concern should be progressed through the safeguarding process or not meant there were challenges in auditing robustly. However, there was good communication processes between contact centre and safeguarding team, and the safeguarding team completed all concerns passed through from contact centre and supported local teams. Leaders in the local authority were aware of the improvements needed and felt they had enough assurance that processes would ensure people were safe. There were some long waits for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to be processed. Leaders acknowledged that they could not keep up with demand and although there was good oversight of the numbers there were no clear plans to reduce the waits.
Overall, the local authority was on a journey of improvement, and leaders were aware of the need to show that the work being done led to intended outcomes that impacted positively for people receiving services. Progress against strategies was shown in some cases, but this was not always consistent, so there was a lack of clear picture of impact and improvements in the delivery of services. New governance structures were coming into place that would hold the local authority to account for the delivery of key performance indicators. Leaders told us this would allow the local authority to better understand what was working, what needed to be improved to support strategic planning.