NATIONAL CARE STANDARDS COMMITTEE MEETING
Conference Room 2, Victoria Quay, Edinburgh, Monday 25 April 2005
Note of the Meeting
Present: Adam Rennie (Chair), Marjory Barquist (Secretary), Leigh Edwardson, Linda Gregson, Jackie Hughes, Janet Law, Karen Lax (Paper 2 only), Mary Marshall, Stephen Mitchell, Suzanne Munday, Raymond Taylor, David Whiteoak, David Wiseman (attending for Jacquie Roberts).
1. Welcome and Introduction
1.1 Adam Rennie welcomed everyone to the fifteenth meeting of the NCSC.
1.2 Adam introduced Professor Mary Marshall, chair of the Working Group on a System of Review for the National Care Standards, who was attending the NCSC to introduce Paper 1.
2. Apologies
2.1 Apologies were received from Colin Anderson, Margaret Davidson, Pat Dawson, Robert Houtman, Mary McCann, Jim McDonald, Janis Pelosi, Jackie Roberts, Maureen Verral.
3. Note of Last Meeting and Matters Arising
3.1 The note of the last meeting was agreed.
3.2 There were three action points from the last meeting.
Revision to the NCS for Independent Hospitals and Hospice Care.
The Care Standards and Sponsorship branch had not had an opportunity to finish drafting the revised wording. Adam advised that the proposed revision would be sent to Committee members with the note of meeting and also to David Steel, Chief Executive NHS QIS for agreement. The Committee agreed to deal with the revised wording electronically.
Omnibus Survey on Awareness of the NCS.
At the Committee's previous meeting, members had asked for a breakdown of the socio-economic groups used in the Omnibus survey. This information had been sent to Committee members with the note of the last meeting. No questions had been raised with the Secretariat about the information.
Urgent Revision to the NCS for Care Homes for Children and Young People.
This action point was addressed in Paper 2.
3.3 There were two matters arising since the last meeting.
Roy Paterson had resigned from the NCSC as the representative from the Scottish Association of Health Councils. Adam wrote to Roy thanking him for his work on the Committee and would shortly be writing to the Scottish Health Council to ask them to nominate another representative to sit on the Committee.
Frances Smith had recently resigned from NHS QIS and would therefore no longer be deputising for David Steel on the NCSC. She wished to convey her best wishes and thanks to the Committee. David Steel or another deputy would be attending the NCSC as the NHS QIS representative in the future.
4. Paper 1: Report of the Working Group on a System of Review for the National Care Standards
4.1 Adam invited Mary Marshall, chair of the Working Group on a System of Review for the National Care Standards, to present Paper 1.
4.2 Mary gave a brief overview of each section of the report. She explained that the report did not recommend how the review should be carried out but instead set out possible options as to how the review could be conducted for consideration by the NCSC.
4.3 Adam advised that, given the scope of the report, further work would be required to narrow the options outlined in the report before any decisions could be made. It was agreed that the Care Standards and Sponsorship branch would prepare a paper narrowing the options presented in the report. To help do this, Adam asked the Committee for their views and comments on the report and the questions it posed.
4.4 The main points to note were:
The Committee discussed how the standards fit in with regulations and agreed that a review should consider linking regulations into the standards, where this was appropriate. However, the Committee strongly agreed that this should not compromise the readability and user friendly aspect of the standards.
The Committee discussed whether there is a core of standards which are common to all 21 sets of standards. If there is, the Committee agreed that a review should investigate whether there was scope to simplify or restructure the current sets of standards to take this into account.
The Committee agreed that a review should look at how the NCS sit with other sets of standards and the impact this has, particularly in terms of joint inspections.
The Committee discussed how the standards should be reviewed (e.g. individually, all altogether, mixed bag). It was agreed that it was likely that a combination of all the options would be necessary and the most useful approach as this would lend flexibility to the review process. Members also felt that it would be helpful to try and group the standards when reviewing them.
The Committee discussed the issue of timing. It was noted that the Care Commission had only been inspecting against the standards since 2002 at the earliest. As such, many of the standards still have to be inspected against. Furthermore, two sets of standards still have to be published. With this in mind, the Committee felt that consideration should be given as to whether it was too early for a review of the standards.
4.5 Adam thanked the Committee for their comments. He advised that the paper narrowing the options would likely be put to the Committee after the summer break.
4.6 Adam closed the discussion by thanking Mary and the working group for all their hard work and for the useful report.
5. Paper 2: Revision of NCS for Care Homes for Children and Young People
5.1 Raymond Taylor from the SSSC introduced Paper 2 which outlined a proposed change, and revision, to the National Care Standards for Care Homes for Children and Young People. Karen Lax from the Scottish Executive Social Work Services Policy Division joined the meeting for the discussion of Paper 2.
5.2 The discussion initially focussed on the revision aspect of the proposal. The Committee agreed the wording of the proposed revision to Standard 7.8. The Committee also agreed that it would not be necessary to consult on the proposed revision since the SSSC had consulted extensively before setting staff qualifications.
5.3 The second point the Committee considered was the proposed addition to Standard 7. Confusion had arisen at the previous NCSC meeting on 25 April regarding the 50% aspect of the proposal and the level of staff qualification required. Following a meeting between the SSSC and policy colleagues, the proposed addition was revised, as outlined below:
'You know that at least 50% of the staff directly caring for you are either trained to or working towards achieving the relevant qualifications set for registration by the SSSC'
5.4 Karen queried whether this addition was necessary given the agreed revision to Standard 7.8 refers to all staff. Adam advised that the addition would bring the standards for Care Homes for Children and Young People into line with the other standards for care homes, which all already include a similarly worded standard.
5.5 Adam pointed out that the inclusion of the 50% reference was to provide motivation for providers to continue to move toward 100% target. There was concern that this would not happen if the 50% reference was not included. Adam also highlighted that if the 50% reference was not included, then the Standard would read that all staff would have to meet the SSSC qualification requirements immediately.
5.6 David Wiseman advised the Committee that if the 50% aspect was not included, the Care Commission would not automatically expect all staff to meet the SSSC qualification requirements immediately. However, the Care Commission would look for evidence from providers that their staff were moving toward the 100% target. Therefore, David did not think that it would make a difference whether the 50% reference was included or not.
5.7 Following this discussion, the Committee agreed that the addition of the 50% reference was not necessary given the revision to Standard 7.8. The standard would read:
'You know that the care home staff have the knowledge and skills necessary to undertake their roles and tasks to meet your needs You know that the service has a staff development strategy and an effective yearly training plan for all its staff. For staff caring for you directly, this focuses on them achieving the qualifications required for registration with the SSSC.'
5.8 Adam advised that this decision would be subject to agreement by policy colleagues who had been unable to attend the meeting.
6.1 Adam advised the Committee that the Secretariat would shortly be scheduling further meetings for the period September to December. The Committee would be told the dates of future meetings and the likely work plan as soon as possible.
7. Date of Next Meeting
7.1 The next meeting will take place on Monday 27 June 2005 in Conference Room 2, Victoria Quay at 10.30am.