1.    The potential ability to access more respite services which will assist carers and service users.

1.    The use of SDS payments mean that users can change services whenever they wish, meaning staff requirements are more varied leading to a potential risk of job insecurity.

2.    The current wait time for the AllPay card to be received by the service user is extremely long. This therefore results in the user being unable to utilise the service when required, for a long period of time unless they pay up front.  This would have a bigger negative impact on those people vulnerable to poverty.  On the other hand, if the organisation decides to take the user on before receipt of the card then they run the risk of the individual moving to another service or no longer requiring the service prior to receipt of the card which results in a financial loss for the organisation.

3.    Some services offer men only days. A reduction in funding could lead to termination of such service.

4.    A potential reduction in staff due to savings could lead to additional demand on employees. This in turn could lead to those with additional support needs receiving a limited service.

5.    Our current Ethnic Minority provider could be effected as individuals within this service have been there for a long period of time. However, this should not be the case and periodic reviews should be taking place to stop this from occurring.

6.    Less supply could lead to increased waiting lists with a resulting negative impact on the service user & carer. (Positives of Day Opp will not be achieved) This may lead to a deterioration of physical and mental health for service user and carer.

7.    The potential of smaller organisations ceasing to operate can lead to additional travel times for service user resulting in stress and distress for individuals.

8.    Any change to service may lead to negative impacts for service users, in particular those that have neurological disorders.

9.    Proposals may impact on number of staff employed, many of whom are on a low pay bracket, leading to potential poverty.

1. Staff

2. Service Users & OPDO Providers

3. Male Service Users

4. Disabled Service Users

5. Ethnic Minority Provider & Service User

6. Service User & Carer

7. Service Users

8. Service Users

9. Staff

1.    Potential remobilisation of dormant care homes leading to additional capacity for respite services.

2.    Larger providers will be able to increase capacity if smaller providers struggle with the 10% contract reduction creating a more sustainable service for these providers.

3.    The SLWG are currently working on a toolkit to support providers with this transition to a new business model with providers that currently offer these services at the forefront of the creation of this documentation. It was noted that this work must be escalated due to the new proposals set out above.

4.    The creation of a blended service model (SDS/ Private Clients) for OPDO providers increases the variety on offer for individuals which may result in more uptake of the services.

5.    Prevent stress and distress for unpaid carers

6.    prevent or delay admission to long term care

7.    promotes “right care, right place, right time” philosophy.

1. Care home providers, carers, cared for person

2. OPDO providers

3. OPDO Providers

4. Service Users

5. Service users/unpaid carers

6. Service users

7. All

1.    The reduction in funding may have a negative effect on some businesses and their sustainability which will cause uncertainty and stress amongst members of staff. This could also lead to highly qualified and knowledgeable staff members leaving the industry to find a more stable career. To mitigate this risk, an in depth internal comms plan must be created. 

2.    Respite is a necessary part of business. It was noted that some providers would not do respite as they felt it was not a good business model as it comes at an increased overall cost as it is a new individual each time.

3.    Smaller organisations may struggle to sustain their business with a reduction in funding and therefore a piece of commissioning & procurement will have to be carried out in order to re commission for the service. Smaller organisations may also not have the same flexibility to accommodate reduced numbers.

4.    If larger organisations take on additional contracted work due to the breakdown of smaller organisations this may lead to stress and distress for service users through both the natural change and the potential additional travel time required. This could then in turn increase the need and so the demand on the provider increases.

2. Carer & Cared for person (lack of availability)

3. Providers – Financial Sustainability

4. OPDO Providers, Cared for Person

5. Cared for Person, OPDO Provider

1.    Increased levels of respite care, leading to reduction of stress on long term care both financial and individual

2.    It has been brought to the attention of the partnership that there are various situations whereby the individual is currently on the incorrect tariff (respite instead of long term care) which is leading to increased costs. There is currently no trigger on our systems to make practitioners aware that individuals need to make the change in tariff and so this is a current savings opportunity.  However, there have been various circumstances whereby practitioners have got in contact with EHSCP colleagues in regard to the changing of tariffs but have been left without a response. This was noted as urgent action.

1. Carers & Cared for Person

2. EHSCP Finances, Practitioners (additional training/support), Carer/Cared for Person (Increased Costs – Stress), EHSCP finances

1.    Increased respite costs leading to increased partnership purchasing costs but as noted above this short term increase in net cost will lead to a larger medium term saving.

2.    Could be seen as we are moving the financial burden from day opportunities to respite instead of making a direct saving.

3.    Some people present felt respite is a necessary part of business whilst others felt some providers would not do respite as they felt it was not a good business model as it comes at an increased overall cost as it is a new individual each time.

4.    Unlike block contract places, SDS & Private Clients are not guaranteed for a certain number of weeks and therefore this firstly creates an increased risk to a recurring income but also potential staffing issues. Staffing requirements will have to be agreed in advance as an expectation of service levels and therefore this may lead to lower staff-user ratios which will in turn lead to some activities being unviable.

5.    If there is an increased unit price the volume of places will be reduced as the budget we have for OPDO services cannot be increased. This will therefore lead to less services unless organisations incorporate the new business model of attracting SDS and private clients.

1. EHSCP Finances

2. EHSCP Finances

3. Providers & Variety for Service Users 

4. Service Users, OPDO Providers

5. Service Users, OPDO Providers