NATIONAL CARE STANDARDS COMMITTEE MEETING
Conference Room 2, Victoria Quay, Edinburgh, Monday 26 April 2004
Note of the Meeting
Present: Adam Rennie (Chair), Marjory Barquist (Secretary), Lorraine Briggs, Val Cox, Sean Doohan, Janet Law, Gordon Masterton, Mary McCann, Jim McDonald, Jan Miller, Roy Patterson, Janis Pelosi, Jacquie Roberts, Frances Smith and David Whiteoak.
1. Apologies
Apologies were received from: Pek Yeong Berry, Pat Dawson, Linda Gregson, Robert Houtmann, Jacqueline Hughes and David Soutar.
2. Welcome
Adam Rennie welcomed everyone to the eleventh meeting of the National Care Standards Committee.
3. Note of Last Meeting and Matters Arising
3.1 There were three matters arising from the last meeting - NCS qualifications, review of the national care standards and the Care Services table. All these issues were agenda items and would be discussed later in the meeting.
3.2 The notes of the last meeting were agreed.
4. Updates
4.1 The draft standards for dental services
The consultation paper had been issued on 25 March to all registered dentists, dental practices and other service providers, professional and umbrella organisations. In order to get structured feedback a questionnaire had been enclosed and was also available online. Service users would be involved in a more direct way using existing networks within the SE and possibly also focus groups or open meetings. There had already been approximately 40 responses and comments had generally been positive. The closing date for the consultation was 24 September.
4.2 NCS for Independent medical consultants and GP services
The legal and policy issues raised by the NCSC had been cleared with solicitors and others. The draft standards had been finalised but had not been issued for consultation yet. They focussed on wholly private services whereas under the Act all private services can be regulated. In the light of developments in the period during which the draft standards had been developed, ongoing developments in the independent healthcare sector and issues such as the effect of the new GMS contract, (particularly in relation to the provision of out of hours services) it had been decided that before the draft standards issued the opportunity should be taken to discuss them with relevant policy colleagues. The Committee would be updated on progress with these issues . Jacquie Roberts supported and welcomed this course of action.
4.3 Awareness of the National Care Standards
This issue had been discussed again with Research colleagues and would be discussed further with the Care Commission. The Committee would be updated on progress in due course.
4.4 Staff Qualifications
At the last meeting the Committee had agreed in principle to the SSSC's proposed change to the standards on direct care staff training and that some work was required on the rewording. The Care Standards and Sponsorship Branch was meeting Geraldine Docherty, SSSC to discuss the rewording on 29 April.
4.5 The SE was considering sending a letter to appropriate service providers to flag up the changes to the standards. It was confirmed that the most important message of the letter should be that the "50% of staff" reference would be removed from the standard. Before being issued any letter would be cleared with Care Commission colleagues.
4.6 Val Cox advised that the position of childminders was being discussed. Childminders are both providers and carers and it was proposed that, rather than require them to be registered also with the SSSC, they would be registered only with the Care Commission. As a condition of that registration childminders would be required to have or be working towards a qualification. This could have implications for the standards and possibly the regulations.
5. Review of the National Care Standards (Paper 1 + 2)
5.1 Paper 1 and 2 were before the Committee again for consideration as requested at the meeting in February. The Committee had agreed during discussion on the review of the National Care Standards that a system was needed for urgent revisions to the standards. Paper 1 set out a proposed process for urgent revisions.
5.2 Jacquie Roberts raised a number of points:
Could anyone propose a revision?
Who would define 'urgent'?
Who within the SE would consult policy colleagues and report back to the NCSC?
When would consultation on a proposed change be required?
Would a regulatory impact assessment be done?
5.3 It was confirmed that the Care Standards and Sponsorship Branch was in the lead on the standards and would therefore consult policy colleagues on proposed changes. Ministers would ultimately decide whether consultation would be required. Regulatory impact assessments had not to date been carried out for any of the standards, although such assessments had been done in relation to the legislation. There was some discussion about 'urgent' and 'necessary' and whether proposals should demonstrate both. David Whiteoak asked how changes to the standards would be communicated to providers and whether there would be a system for reconsidering inspection reports in the light of changes. Jacquie confirmed that something would need to be built into the process.
5.4 It was agreed that some further work was required on the proposal and an amended version of Paper 1 would be produced which would be seen by the NCSC. It was further agreed that the proposals should remain an internal document until the process for overall review had been agreed. However, the process could be used for any urgent revisions that came up in the meantime.
5.5 Paper 2 set out the process for the longer term review of the National Care Standards. It posed a number of questions at paragraph 7. There was discussion around the purpose of the review and the need to be clear about this. The research on awareness of the standards would provide useful information for the review. It was suggested that the purpose should have an explicit reference to how the standards are improving quality. One suggestion was that a sub-group could be set up to take forward the development of the review process.
5.6 It was agreed that a small sub-group of around 6 to 8 people would be set up to bottom out the purpose of the review and address the questions posed at paragraph 7 of the paper. It was suggested that the sub-group could include members from the current and previous Committee, representatives from the Care Commission, the Scottish Social Services Council, NHS Quality Improvement Scotland, User/Carer representative, a researcher and someone to represent ethnic minorities.
6. Care Services Table (Paper 3)
6.1 It was agreed at the last meeting that the table produced by the Sponsorship branch needed some further work to simplify the language. The addition of a column detailing the associated regulations had also been suggested. Work had progressed on the table and it had been prepared for the branch's website. The Committee were asked to look at the layout and not the content, which still needed some work. Sean demonstrated to the Committee how the table looked on the website with the hyperlinks to appropriate pages such as those containing the standards. The Committee commended the proposed website delivery of the information in the table and considered that it would be a useful resource. The Care Commission was working on information for its own website which was circulated to the Committee for information.
6.2 It was agreed that the Sponsorship branch would do some further work on the table and also look at the text produced by the Care Commission. When the content was accurate the information would be put onto the Sponsorship branch's website. The Committee suggested that the website could also be used to measure awareness of the National Care Standards. It was agreed that this would be discussed with IT colleagues.
7. AOCB
7.1 There was no other core business.
8. Dates of next meeting
8.1 The next meeting was scheduled for Monday 31st May 2004 but this meeting has now been cancelled. The next meeting will now be on Monday 28th June in Conference Room 2, Victoria Quay at 10.30.