Bradford People First is a user led self-advocacy organisation run by and for people with learning disabilities.

 

Last year they carried out a survey with people with learning disabilities about the support they get.  The survey was based upon the REACH standards which are:

 

I choose who I live with

I choose where I live

I have my own home

I choose how I am supported

I choose who supports me

I get good support

I choose my friends and relationships

I choose how to be healthy and safe

I choose how I am part of the community

I have the same rights and responsibilities as other citizens

I get help to make changes in my life

 

Representatives of Bradford People First will give a presentation on the results of the survey and what the findings suggest should happen now.

 

                                                            (Darryl Smith – 01274 435001/435031)

Bradford People First is a user led self-advocacy organisation run by and for people with learning disabilities.

 

Last year they carried out a survey with people with learning disabilities about the support they get.  The survey was based upon the REACH standards which are:

 

I choose who I live with

I choose where I live

I have my own home

I choose how I am supported

I choose who supports me

I get good support

I choose my friends and relationships

I choose how to be healthy and safe

I choose how I am part of the community

I have the same rights and responsibilities as other citizens

I get help to make changes in my life

 

Representatives from Bradford People First gave a brief presentation on the results of the survey and what the findings suggest should happen now.  During the presentation the following information was alluded to:

 

·         During the survey 71 people with learning disabilities were spoken to across Bradford, Keighley and Ilkley.

 

·         Individuals and organisations were not named in the feedback.

 

·         Some common themes included that most of the people were happy with the support they received.

 

·         That when people were contacted at home by phone, most of the time it was the support worker who answered the phone.

 

·         That information was not always being passed onto people.

 

·         Out of the 37 providers and organisations that were contacted, only 9 responded.

 

Understanding the meaning of choice:

 

·         Our staff give us a few ideas such as I go on my own with staff to the bank and for lunch

 

·         In essence sometimes decisions are made by others and people do not know what choice is.

 

·         The language people use is not always helpful i.e. “Staff tell me to go to bed”; “they would let me stay at home” or “we would be allowed to stay at home”

 

 

In relation to staffing the comments made in the survey included:

 

“When I am poorly I can’t stay at home because there is no staff”;  they might change the rota without telling me and send someone else or sometimes forget to send someone.

 

“They don’t come into the doctors with me, but have to wait in the car while I have an appointment”.

 

Summary and Recommendations:

 

·         The question posed - Is it support or care?

 

·         That there needs to be a culture change

 

·         Recommend there be more independent quality checking of support services

 

·         That although the support people received was about promoting independent living this was not always the case.

 

·         That the survey finding presents a real challenge for service providers to promote independent living.

 

·         Given the low level of response to the survey, the survey only reflected a small number of people who received support and therefore we did not know the true picture.

 

During the discussion, a co-opted member stated that many of the people who received support were overall happy with the service they received, however a number of issues had been raised.  In response it was stated that many suggestions of activities came from staff and not from the person with the learning disability, so the survey did flag up the issue that individuals receiving support were not always making their own choices.

 

In response to a question regarding the number of providers, it was explained that issues raised by service users were not always passed on.  In response to a question on how this could be improved, it was mentioned that workforce training was key and the ability of staff to support conversations and prioritise concerns accordingly, as there was a tendency not to fully engage with service users.

 

A Member raised concerns that given the number of providers, only a few of them had responded to the survey and asked about  the reasons for the low level of response.  In response it was explained that staff responding to the survey had not understood its importance.

 

In response to a question of encouraging higher levels of autonomy amongst service users, it was explained that supported living sometimes lacked imagination and a pattern was followed in terms of the activities undertaken, as an alternative set of options would require undertaking risk assessments etc., so choice was therefore limited by giving only a limited set of options to service users.

 

It was suggested that what was required was a in depth quality review of what was currently in place and how this could be improved.

 

A Member commented that in improving choice and the number of activities people undertook could be realised by advanced planning rather than relying on rigid, familiar activities.

 

The Health and Wellbeing Portfolio Holder confirmed that getting people independent was key to what the Council was trying to achieve.

 

The Strategy and Engagement officer acknowledged that workforce development was essential to achieving better service provision and that flexibility would offer an improved service.

 

The Strategic Director Health and Wellbeing echoed the above sentiments and expressed her disappointment at the low response rate to the survey, adding that the Service had done a lot of work to extend choice to service users across the piece and ensure that activities provided were balanced.

 

In addition Members were keen to see that in improving services, better engagement and consultation took place with service users.

 

Resolved –

 

(1)       That a report be provided to the Committee in 6 months time      covering the issues raised by the presentation around support     and gatekeeping and how these might be addressed through         workforce development and work with providers.

 

(2)       That the report also consider how improvements could be made           as part of the commissioning process, by for example, increased            engagement and consultation with service users and compulsory   independent quality checking.

 

ACTION: Strategic Director Health and Wellbeing