Agenda item

The Chair thanked Councillors who attended the three evidence gathering sessions for the scrutiny review into access to GP services and Adult Social Care. Members had now heard from a number of residents and were very grateful to the residents who had taken the time to feedback on this topic.  Particular themes were definitely emerging,  around e-consult and digital access, staff retention and training, and access via phonelines and to familiar members of staff.

The Chair invited Councillors who had attended the sessions to report back to the Committee. 

Councillor Burgess said that the sessions were interesting. Two of the attendees had children with special educational needs and a third was a user of the Shared Lives Service, which provided foster care for adults. This latter person had cared for two or three different people  in her home, over a period of about forty years, and was content with all that the Council had provided by way of support.  Her son, who had supported her, was also going into the same service, which was a positive for continuity.  The Chair of the Family Carers’ Group and another member of that group who had a very disabled son, had raised the issue of what would happen when they were no longer able to look after their children.  This was a major worry for many people in the same circumstances.  Another worry was not being able to hire personal assistants. Recipients were happy with the direct payments from the Council, but there was a shortage of personal assistants.  The lack of suitable staff willing to do this type of caring was a major concern at the present time in Social Services generally.

Councillor Clarke had attended an Age UK meeting, which was well attended, by approximately 60 people.  The theme of the meeting was access to GP surgeries. There seemed to be a split in the Borough, with some people struggling with digital exclusion and experiencing difficulty with the e-consult forms and others able to walk in to, or telephone, their surgery, to make an appointment.  Concern had been expressed about people with mental health or learning difficulties being able to make appointments with GPs, as many of them could not access or navigate the e-consult form.  She suggested that this was an issue upon which the Committee needed to make a recommendation.  The other matter considered was the question of people not being aware of, or not knowing how to access, the seemingly plentiful Adult Social Care resources in Islington.  She anticipated that the establishment of hubs could help in this regard, advising people on getting the help they needed, given this apparent inequality of service.  Some users had mentioned that staff had been rude to them on the telephone and of their difficulties in accessing the complaints system and  in receiving responses.  Attendees had also mentioned the amount of time they had wasted on the telephone, waiting for responses from GPs or Social Services.  Some attendees had mentioned the helpfulness of pharmacies. Safeguarding had also been raised as an issue, with an example given of an issue being raised with the Safeguarding Team and no response having been given for four months, which could also be considered as an area for a recommendation.

Councillor Burgess concurred with the point about the digital divide faced by users and said that a carer of a person with severe needs simply would not have the time to engage with IT to access forms. Also a point had been made that it would make an enormous difference to someone with a learning disability to be looked after by the same GP at each visit.

The Chair stated that the minutes from the sessions would be circulated to members.  The recommendations of the review had been moved to the April meeting to allow  time for consideration of residents’ feedback and the presentation from the Access Islington Hubs, which was due to be considered later at this meeting

The Chair asked Committee members and everyone presenting to keep presentations and questions short and to the point.