< Previous | Contents | Next >

THE JOINT PERFORMANCE INFORMATION AND ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK (JPIAF) -CONSULTATION ON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR SINGLE SHARED ASSESSMENTS, CARER'S ASSESSMENTS, AND ASSESSMENT WAITING TIMES

Dear Colleagues

THE JOINT PERFORMANCE INFORMATION AND ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK (JPIAF) — CONSULTATION ON PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR SINGLE SHARED ASSESSMENTS, CARER’S ASSESSMENTS, AND ASSESSMENT WAITING TIMES

I enclose a consultation paper setting out possible local and national performance indicators for single shared assessments, carer’s assessments, and waiting times for community care assessments. Your views are invited by 26 September 2003.

Context

Circular No CCD 1/2003 of 28 February 2003 introduced the Joint Performance Information and Assessment Framework (JPIAF) for assessing performance of joint services. It reported that an indicator on "speedier assessments" (JPIAF 6) would be introduced following the advice of the JPIAF Sub-group on Single Shared Assessment performance measures. The Sub-group was set up in October 2002 to advise on the definition of Single Shared Assessment (SSA) for reporting purposes, and to specify and define performance indicators to measure waiting times for assessment and services. Its remit was subsequently extended to include the development of performance measures for carers’ assessments. The Sub-group’s remit and membership are set out in Annex 1. Its report forms the basis for the current consultation.

What are we consulting on?

The Group produced three linked consultation papers:

Paper 1: Counting Single Shared Assessments
Paper 2: Performance Measures for Carers Assessments
Paper 3: Waiting Times for Community Care Assessments and Services.

Electronic copies can be found at www.scotland.gov.uk/views/views.asp

Each consultation paper contains:

• the full specification of the proposed PI, including any contextual information;
• the full set of definitions required to produce the PI on a consistent and comparable basis; and
• specific consultation questions.

The proposed performance indicators are listed, together with the rationale for their collection, in Annex 2. In general terms, the rationale relates to the need to monitor progress locally and nationally in implementing the key Joint Future objectives on assessment: ie are waiting times for assessment and services reducing over time, are more carers being assessed, and are more assessments being undertaken jointly?

The definitions form a major part of each paper and are essential to the consultation. Without a clear and consistent framework of definitions, performance measures are unlikely to be collected on a comparable basis either within Councils and local partnerships, or nationally. (The definitions draw upon published and unpublished work by the Social Care Data Standards Project. Extensive use is also made of the Department of Health data definitions supporting the English national statistics on community care Referrals, Assessments and Packages of care (RAP)). For some definitions, the consultation papers offer a clear lead; for others, they are more open.

The JPIAF Steering Group recognised the comprehensive nature of the report from the Sub-group and endorsed the need to consult not only on the measures themselves but on the definitions underpinning them. It therefore sought to consult on the report in its entirety. But it also recognised, as did the Sub-group, that the range of suggested indicators extends beyond the strict parameters of national measures for joint performance monitoring (as per the rest of JPIAF). Thus, a vital part of the consultation is to gather views on whether indicators are appropriate for local or national use (the latter divided between, on the one hand, JPIAF performance measures and, on the other, for information/monitoring more generally).

The indicators do, however, set a helpful trend. They sit well with the planned movement in JPIAF indicators generally from ‘processes’ as at present to ‘outcomes’. For 2004, the Steering Group plans to develop a relatively small number of outcome measures for key parts of the Joint Future Agenda as it applies to older people (and will be rolled out to all community care thereafter). The measures identified in this consultation are designed to capture outputs, and are therefore in the same broad direction.

What are we asking?

The consultation questions ask first whether the proposed performance indicator is seen as essential information to have locally within each partnership. This is based on the principle that national information should be developed as a subset of the information required to manage and plan services at the local partnership level. They then focus on uses nationally — drawing a distinction between being essential for JPIAF and highly desirable for other purposes - and then on their robustness and collectability, as follows:

1. Is the proposed PI considered fit for purpose locally? Does it provide:

• essential information for councils and their partners locally, or
• desirable but not essential information for councils and their partners locally, or
• neither of the above — it is not useful information?

2. Is the proposed PI considered fit for purpose nationally? Does it provide:

• essential information for measuring nationally (on a basis consistent with the rest of the evolving JPIAF system) joint performance of key parts of the Joint Future Agenda, (and for benchmarking locally); or
• highly desirable information for central government, COSLA, ADSW, NHSScotland, voluntary organisations, and other stakeholders to monitor/assess other aspects of Joint Future policies and for individual Councils and partnerships to benchmark their own position; or
• desirable but not essential information for all stakeholders; or
• none of the above — it is not useful information?

3. Are the proposed definitions robust: do they resolve all problems of measurement, and enable the PIs to be produced on a consistent and comparable basis across councils and their local partnerships?

4. Would Councils and local partners be able to start collecting the information from 1 April 2004, following changes to assessment forms, procedures, and their IT systems.

Following consultation, the Executive and partners plan to issue PIs for inclusion in the second phase of the JPIAF process, for implementation from April 2004.

IT Considerations

The JPIAF Steering Group acknowledges that the proposed PIs will make significant demands on the IT systems being used within Councils and partnerships to support the assessment process. In parallel with the consultation, discussions will be held with the leading commercial providers of social work client-based IT systems to clarify the capability of their current products to deliver the proposed PIs, and to clarify any development timescales.

Where to send comments

Comments on the Consultation Paper should be sent by 26 September 2003 to:

Derick Wilson
Joint Future Unit
Scottish Executive Health Department
St. Andrew’s House
Regent Road,
Edinburgh EH1 3DG
e-mail: Derick.J.Wilson@scotland.gsi.gov.uk; Telephone: 0131-244 5481

It would be helpful if comments were framed according to the structure of the consultation (ie by paper, and within that, by indicator, and by definitions). Questions on points of detail in the consultation papers should be addressed in the first instance to Liz Taylor (0131-244 3652; Elizabeth.Taylor@scotland.gsi.gov.uk) or about the process generally to Brenda Kerr (0131 244 3744) or Derick Wilson.

As is customary, comments will be assumed to be accessible publicly, through a file held in the Scottish Executive’s library, unless we are advised to the contrary.

Yours sincerely

J A RENNIE
Head of Community Care Division 2

The Joint Future Unit leads policy development and implementation on joint working between health, housing and social work (which its membership reflects) and is located in the Community Care Division of the Health Department.
SSA consultation.doc

ANNEX 1 JPIAF SSA PERFORMANCE MEASURES SUBGROUP

(a) REMIT

(b) MEMBERSHIP

The Subgroup was also assisted by contributions from Jackie Welsh, Glasgow City Council (on time interval measures) and by Felix Otton, Scottish Executive (on carers’ assessments).

ANNEX 2 PROPOSED PERFORMANCE INDICATORS — DESCRIPTIONS AND RATIONALE

< Previous | Contents | Next >