Skip to main content Skip to accessibility
This website is not compatible with your web browser. You should install a newer browser. If you live in Jersey and need help upgrading call the States of Jersey web team on 440099.
Government of Jerseygov.je

Information and public services for the Island of Jersey

L'înformâtion et les sèrvices publyis pouor I'Île dé Jèrri

Independent Inspection and Review of Health and Social Services.

A formal published “Ministerial Decision” is required as a record of the decision of a Minister (or an Assistant Minister where they have delegated authority) as they exercise their responsibilities and powers.

Ministers are elected by the States Assembly and have legal responsibilities and powers as “corporation sole” under the States of Jersey Law 2005 by virtue of their office and in their areas of responsibility, including entering into agreements, and under any legislation conferring on them powers.

An accurate record of “Ministerial Decisions” is vital to effective governance, including:

  • demonstrating that good governance, and clear lines of accountability and authority, are in place around decisions-making – including the reasons and basis on which a decision is made, and the action required to implement a decision

  • providing a record of decisions and actions that will be available for examination by States Members, and Panels and Committees of the States Assembly; the public, organisations, and the media; and as a historical record and point of reference for the conduct of public affairs

Ministers are individually accountable to the States Assembly, including for the actions of the departments and agencies which discharge their responsibilities.

The Freedom of Information Law (Jersey) Law 2011 is used as a guide when determining what information is be published. While there is a presumption toward publication to support of transparency and accountability, detailed information may not be published if, for example, it would constitute a breach of data protection, or disclosure would prejudice commercial interest.

A decision made (27/11/2006) regarding Independent Inspection and Review of Health and Social Services (HSSD).

Subject:

Independent Inspection and Review of Health and Social Services (HSSD)

Decision Reference:

MD-H SS- 2006-0057

Exempt clause(s):

 

Type of Report:

(oral or written)

Written

Person Giving Report (if oral):

 

Telephone or

e-mail Meeting?

 

Report

File ref:

 

Written report – Title

Independent Inspection and Review of Health and Social Services (HSSD)

Written report – Author

(name and job title)

Richard L Jouault, Director of Corporate Planning & Performance Management

Decision(s): HSSD to participate in a rolling program of independent review of healthcare services prescribed by the Healthcare Commission in 2007. The program is proposed to begin with the following reviews:

  1. Maternity Services
  2. Inpatient Mental Health Services
  3. Substance Misuse Services
  4. Race Equality.

HSSD to continue to develop its governance framework with regard to compliance with the Standards for Better Health.

Senior Management team to develop options for the delivery of independent second stage complaints and consider arrangements with Guernsey’s Health Board with regard to this.

2.3.1 Reason(s) for decision: (see attached report)

The Healthcare Commission (CHAI) will merge with the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) and the Mental Health Act Commission (MHAC) in 2007-2008 to form a new regulator carrying the working title of “OFCARE”. The Department of Health UK are currently preparing the Health and Social Care Bill to bring this into being. Article 23 of the draft Bill enables OFCARE to enter into arrangements with public authorities in the Channel Islands with regard to advice and assistance. HSSD will liaise with the Healthcare Commission in the interim and OFCARE once it is established, to provide independent review of health and social care services in Jersey. The Healthcare Commission are unable to provide independent second stage complaints for Jersey due to administrative constraints. HSSD will develop alternative proposals for this function.

Action required: HSSD Senior Management Team to participate in proposed Healthcare Commission Service Reviews in 2007 and develop proposals for independent second stage complaints procedure.

Signature:

(Minister for Health and Social Services)

Date of Decision:

27 November 2006

Independent Inspection and Review of Health and Social Services.

Health & Social Services

Senior Management Team Meeting

26th September 2006

Independent Inspection and Review of Health and Social Services (HSSD)

Background

The States Strategic Plan 2006-2010 states:

2.3.1 The performance of the Health and Social Services Department in meeting “Standards for Better Health” will be independently inspected by the Healthcare Commission in April 2007 and the results of that inspection will be published (HSS)

A business case for independent inspection of HSSD services and provision of second stage complaints (see appendix 1) was sent to the Healthcare Commission (HC) on the 04/07/06. This was reviewed by the HC Strategy Committee on the 13/07/06. The Chief Executive of the HC wrote to the HSSD CEO on the 01/08/06. To summarise:

· The HC declared that they were unable to provide HSSD with second stage complaints due to their own resource constraints.

· The HC was unable to provide independent inspection to the States of Jersey Health and Social Services due to a lack of management capacity.

A response from the HSSD CEO was sent on 09/08/06 and a meeting arranged in London to identify a way forward. Those attending the meeting were as follows:

Dr Richard Lane Medical Director HSSD

Richard Jouault Director CPPM HSSD

Kate Lubley Head of Operations HC

David Bawden Head of Methods HC

The outcomes of the meeting were as follows:

  The Isle of Man Report (July 2006) was a “one-off intervention” and will not be repeated. The Healthcare Commission no longer has the infrastructure to deliver this type of “clinical governance review”(CGR). Its current approach to inspection is “light touch”. This involves UK Trusts declaring their compliance with the “Standards for Better Health” and the Commission collating significant amounts of information from a variety of sources such as the National Statistical Data Warehouse for Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), The Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts (CNST) and the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) etc. The intention is to inspect about 20% of Trusts. As HSSD does not contribute to these data collection points, the HC are not able to assure a declaration made by HSSD against the Standards for Better Health.

  The merger of the Healthcare Commission and the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) is due to occur in 2007-2008. The 1st Bill regarding the merger goes before UK Parliament in autumn 2006. The precise outcome of this merger and its effects upon the current approaches to inspection are not known at this time.

The way forward

The HC carry out a wide range of reviews of healthcare services and it would be practicable for HSSD to be included in these reviews. This would enable HSSD to benchmark its’ services against UK provision by independent means.

Recommendation:

HSSD participate in a rolling program of independent review of healthcare services prescribed by the Healthcare Commission in 2007. The program would begin with the following reviews:

  1. Maternity Services
  2. Inpatient Mental Health Services
  3. Substance Misuse Services
  4. Race Equality.

HSSD continue to develop its governance framework with regard to compliance with the Standards for Better Health.

Resource Implications

Precise costings for inclusion within the HC’s review program are not known at this time although it has been emphasised that it is significantly less than a Clinical Governance Review (IoM estimated at between £100K-£150K). It is anticipated that the annual cost of review will be met by the revised growth bid for 2007.

Action:

The Senior Management Team is requested:

· To support this approach to independent review of HSSD.

· Nominate membership to a team to develop alternative plans for the management of second stage complaints.

· Consider the implications for Primary Care Services.

Richard Jouault Dr Richard Lane

Director CPPM Medical Director

26th September 2006

Appendix 1

Healthcare Commission Outline Business Case

Project title: Jersey - review and inspection of health and social care provision

Strategic Goals:

• To provide assessment of the assurance of the quality of healthcare services provided by the Health and Social Services Department (HSSD) Jersey, to the population of the island.

• Making information available about the performance of the HSSD, Jersey to patients and the public.

• To provide assessment of the assurance of the quality of governance arrangements between HSSD and partner agencies: specifically General Practice and Family Nursing & Home Care Inc.

• To assist the Heath and Social Services Department to improve its healthcare services by the provision of review and inspection and guidance on how to implement practices for improvement.

• To provide an independent second stage of complaints for HSSD.

• To provide the opportunity for the Healthcare Commission to implement assessment methodology in a non UK health and social care environment and to learn from this experience.

• To provide a basis on which to develop further partnership working in healthcare audit and inspection between the Health and Social Services (HSSD) Jersey and the Healthcare Commission.

Description

Background — Jersey

Jersey is the largest of the Channel Islands with an area of 118.2 sq. km. situated 14 miles off the North West coast of France and 85 miles from the English Coast. Jersey is a Crown Dependency and is not part of the United Kingdom, nor is it a colony, but it owes allegiance to the British Crown and the UK is responsible for Jersey’s Defence and international representation. It is not represented in the UK parliament, whose Acts only extend to Jersey if expressly agreed by the Island that they should do so.

Jersey is not part of the European Union, although it has a special relationship with the EU which is defined in Protocol 3 to the UK Treaty of Accession. It is divided into twelve parishes each of which is presided over by an elected Connétable, who deals with issues relating to civil matters and by a Rector who oversees issues relating to Ecclesiastical affairs.

The legislature of the Island is called “The States of Jersey”, members of which are elected by the population. In December 2005 a new system of government was established in Jersey. The old Committee system was abolished and replaced by a new Council of Ministers working alongside scrutiny panels.

The economy of Jersey has changed dramatically over the past 40 years with the decline of traditional industries such as agriculture and latterly tourism and the growth of the Financial Services sector that now employs almost a quarter of the workforce. As a result, the population of 87,186 (2001 Census) enjoys a relatively high GNI of £35,000 per head of population.

Background — Health & Social Services

HSSD is divided into the following Directorates

• Corporate Directorate– (which includes Ambulance & Estates)

• Medical Directorate — (which includes Services for Older People and Paediatrics)

• Surgical Directorate — (which includes Maternity and Procurement)

• Social Services Directorate — (which is divided into Adults, Children and Special Needs Services)

• Mental Health Directorate (which includes EMI, Drugs and Alcohol and CAMHS)

• Public Health Directorate (which includes Health Protection, Health Promotion and Health Intelligence Unit)

The overall aim of the Health & Social Services Department is to -:

Redesign the health and social care system to deliver improved health and social well being for the Island community.

Key objectives and measures of performance are -:

Objective 1: Improve health and social care outcomes by reducing the incidence of mortality, disease and injury in the population

Performance/success criteria:

By 2010:

● Increased life expectancy at birth in Jersey for men and women.(Target = for men to 78.6 AND for women to 82.5)

● Reduced mortality rates:

- From heart disease and stroke and related diseases for people under 75 (Target = 85 per 100,000 population (aged standardized mortality)

- From cancer in people under 75 (Target = 113 per 100,000 population (aged standardized mortality)

- From suicide and undetermined injury (Target = 7.4 per 100,000 population (aged standardized mortality)

● Reduced adult and children smoking rates (Target = Adults 16+ = 24% (prevalence), children aged 14 & 15 = 29 % (prevalence) by 2006)

Objective 2: Improve the consumers’ experience of Health and Social Services

Performance/success criteria:

● Secure improvements in the consumers experience of health and social services as measured by independently validated surveys (Target = Survey scores better than England average).

● Minimize elective inpatient and outpatient waiting time (Target = Maintain access to 3 months or less)

● Ambulance response times – Percentage of category A calls met within 8 minutes. (Target = 75% of calls to be responded to within 8 minutes.)

Objective 3: Manage staff and resources so as to improve performance and provide value for money

Performance/success criteria:

● Financial balance - is both a key objective and a legal requirement for States Departments. It provides the essential platform on which to manage and develop services (Target = Balanced budget (-/+ 100K).

● Minimise management costs to ensure maximum resources are directed to health and social care services (Target = Management staff to account for less than 3% of the workforce).

Objective 4: To promote the independence of adults needing social care enabling them to live as safe, full and as normal a life as possible, in their own home wherever feasible

Performance/success criteria:

● The percentage of adult social services users receiving a statement of their needs and how they will be met (Target = 100%).

● Clients receiving a review as a percentage of those receiving a service (Target = 70%).

● Intensive home care - Households receiving intensive home care per 1,000 population aged 65 or over (Target = 10% or greater by 2010).

● Delayed transfer of care - The average number of delayed transfers of care per 100,000 population aged 65 or over (Target = 30 per 100,000 population aged 65+).

Objective 5: To maximise the social development of children within the most appropriate environment to meet their needs.

● Stability of placements of children looked after - The percentage of children looked after at 31 December with three or more placements during the year (Target = 10% or less of children with 3 or more placements).

● Children in care in family placements - The proportion of children being looked after by family, friends, foster carers or placed for adoption (Target = 80% by 2010).

● Re-registrations on the Child Protection Register - The percentage of children registered during the year on the Child Protection Register who had been previously registered (Target = 10% or less re-registration).

● Duration on the child protection register - The percentage of children de-registered who had been on the Register for longer than two years (Target = 5% or less).

Evidenced based practice

Evidenced based practice is implemented by utilising-:

National Service Frameworks (NSF’s) developed for England and Wales

National Institute of Clinical Excellence guidelines

Evidence based guidance and protocols of the Royal Colleges (UK)

Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) guidelines

And; participating in National Audits-:

National Stroke Audit

South West Cancer intelligence Service Registration Reports

National Confidential Enquiries

Healthcare Commission Project Objectives:

Following contract negotiations, the partnership between the Healthcare Commission and the HSSD, Jersey will provide:

1) A transparent, accessible and robust system of review and inspection of processes to assure the quality of health care provided to the population of Jersey.

2) A detailed summary of the evidence on which the review and inspection findings are based

3) A comprehensive action plan to address areas for improvement and further review

4) Opportunities and a basis from which to develop further partnership working between the HSSD Jersey, and the Healthcare Commission.

Phase 1: fieldwork and analysis

Fact-finding visits and interviews within Health and Social Care services and other relevant agencies in Jersey.

This will include establishing a number of stakeholder interviews with patients, carers, local groups and organisations and members of the public, staff within the HSSD and operational staff providing health and social care services.

This will include establishing interview sessions in various locations throughout the island for patients and members for the public, local partner organisations and groups.

This will also include a number of interviews with clinical, non-clinical and managerial staff providing health and social care and observation visits to clinical and non-clinical areas.

Meetings with lead personnel or specific parts of the assessment may be arranged.

Timeframe September 2006 — February 2007

Phase 2: Analyse and synthesize results

The data and information gathered from the review and inspection will be collated, coded and analysed to form the basis of the final report and evidence tables

Timeframe: March — April 2007

Phase 3: Drafting of Report

The HSSD will have the opportunity to comment on the report during the drafting stages to ensure factual accuracy. The draft report will follow the agreed processes for ensuring quality assurance of reports produced by the Healthcare Commission.

Timeframe: April 2007

Phase 4: Provision of Second Stage Complaints

Healthcare Commission will act as an independent second stage for complaints for all HSSD service users.

Timeframe: December 2006.

Appendix I

Additional review and inspection formation

Wording in reports

Every statement in the final report will link with a section in the evidence base, which is a record of the data and information gathered during the review and inspection process, and will reflect the strength of that evidence.

Stakeholder meetings

The purpose of the stakeholder meetings is to seek views, experiences and comments from patients and the public and colleagues in the local health economy and partner organisations.

The interview, note taking, reflection, requests for a copy of the notes and expenses for members of the public

The project manager will explain the Healthcare Commissions remit; that notes are taken; and that information is non attributable but will contribute to the focus of the review and inspection.

Individuals may occasionally request a copy of the notes of their interview. The interviewee should make such requests in writing to the information governance manager at the Commission. The project manager will be asked to provide the information governance manager with the transcripts who will then contact the interviewee.

Travel expenses can be paid for members of the public. The project manager will exercise judgement regarding the safety of a distressed person to travel/return home.

Timetable for meeting with health and social care staff within HSSD

Interviews will take place with a cross section of staff in scheduled interviews lasting between an hour and an hour and a half. Preparation for timetabling for health care staff includes stipulated length of session as is the need for dedicated travel time/preparation/write up/coding time between sessions.

Appendix 2 Health & Social Services – list of Contacts

Key contacts

Rose Naylor Director of Nursing & Governance

Dr Richard Lane Medical Director

Richard Jouault Director of Corporate Planning and Performance Management

 

Back to top
rating button