Agenda item

WCC Covid Recovery Approach

This paper aims to provide an overview of the Council’s approach to recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, as set out in the attached paper, considered by Cabinet on the 11 June. 

Minutes:

 

A report was introduced by Nigel Minns, Strategic Director for People Directorate, to provide an overview of the Council’s approach to recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. A key aspect was the development of a recovery plan which would be submitted to Cabinet for approval in September. This Committee’s comments were sought on the approach to the development of the recovery plan.

 

Following its approval there would be an ongoing scrutiny role, particularly over the longer-term delivery phase. This would feature in the planned review of the scrutiny function.

 

The key elements of the recovery approach were summarised within the report and provided in more detail in the appended report approved by the Cabinet on 11 June. This set out the three phases to recovery. The Council was now in the foundation stage and an outline was given of the key focuses and the output for the recovery plan being presented to Cabinet in September.

 

The report included a section on the focus of the response and plans for recovery. The Council had worked flexibly and adapted in many ways to ensure that key services were delivered, and people were supported to cope with the effects of Covid19. Examples were provided of the responsiveness and actions taken by Public Health, Adult Social Care and People Strategy and Commissioning for services within the remit of this Committee.

 

As the Council moved into the delivery phase of its recovery plan, there would be a role for this committee to consider aspects of recovery relevant to its remit, particularly health and social care and aspects of community recovery.  It was proposed that further reports be brought to the Committee for its consideration.

 

Nigel Minns focussed on key sections of the report, giving examples of the work undertaken over the last three months. He referred to the isolation arrangements for Covid patients leaving hospital before retuning to a care home setting. He referred members to the appended Cabinet report and the recovery principles set out within it. There were close working arrangements with health colleagues and the voluntary sector on the recovery actions.

 

The following questions and comments were received with responses provided as indicated:

 

  • In response to a question from the Chair, Nigel Minns gave an outline of how the County Council had assisted care home providers especially with the provision of personal protective equipment (PPE). Reference was made to a webpage containing further information. This link would be provided after the meeting and can be viewed here. A workforce recruitment plan had also been established, leading to over 100 additional staff being employed. Finally, he spoke about the financial offer to care providers to meet all additional costs associated with the pandemic. The government infection control fund was passported to care providers within a week of receipt. This had already exceeded £4.1m and was continuing to increase. A further update on distribution of funding, including the second tranche of £2.7m of government funding would be provided shortly. The Chair considered a good response had been provided by the County Council to care homes and by its officers generally. This sentiment was echoed by several members during the debate.
  • Data was sought on the number of Covid positive patients going from George Eliot Hospital into intermediate care and whether any had needed to go back into hospital. The data would shared after the meeting. No patients had needed to return to hospital.
  • The sustainability of the measures implemented was raised, especially the support for homeless people and provision of transitional care. On hospital discharge, the work undertaken over the last two years had helped. Good joint working arrangements had been established, with relationships improving still further during the pandemic. There was joint work on planning the recovery processes. It was hoped that the guidance in place currently would remain similar after the pandemic. There had been terrific support for homeless people across all areas and good joint working between agencies. There was a wish to sustain this if possible and announcements were awaited from central government on funding and arrangements. It was agreed that a letter be sent from the committee to offer support for the continuation of the current measures implemented.
  • More information was provided on the priorities for reinstatement of services. This included commissioned services, respite, support for people with disabilities and domestic abuse services. Many services such as sexual health services had continued to operate virtually, but reinstating face to face services was a priority.
  • Some issues were beyond the County Council’s direct remit. Examples were the decisions on reopening of pubs, restaurants and schools. There was a need to work with other local authorities and the private sector. Officers assured there were good joint working arrangements for example on recovery, town centre planning and members were referred to a section of the Cabinet report which detailed this joint work. It was questioned how local councillors could contribute and the impacts for the business sector were also referenced. Key messages from the pandemic remained in terms of enhanced hygiene and social distancing. This was key to preventing a second wave of the pandemic. An outline was given of key messages within the Outbreak Control Plan.
  • It was agreed that reducing health inequalities was a key aspect and this would be the chosen topic for the annual DPH report, anchored by the experience from covid. The pandemic had emphasised the health divide between the north and south of the county. The Outbreak Control Plan would also come into the public domain from the end of June.
  • Covid cases in residential care homes was raised with recognition of the way the County Council had responded to a ‘spike’ in cases.
  • The committee’s work programme included an item on the long-term sustainability of the care home market. It was hoped this would be included in the cabinet working groups as a recovery aspect.
  • Similarly, the mental health difficulties for some people in coping with the lockdown, respite arrangements, telephone support services and the potential for social prescribing were mentioned as further areas for consideration.
  • The points raised on respite and care home sustainability were recognised as key priorities. There may remain public nervousness on being admitted to a care environment and currently there were high vacancy rates. There was national work through the government and ADASS on sustainability of the care home market.
  • Healthwatch Warwickshire had undertaken a project on access to primary care services for homeless people. It was hoped that the current flexibility and relaxation would be continued after the pandemic, so homeless people continued to have easier access to services. The committee was asked to monitor this, which the Chair agreed to do. Gill Entwistle of South Warwickshire CCG agreed with the points raised and offered to pursue this with Healthwatch after the meeting.

 

Resolved

 

That the Committee:

 

  1. Receives and notes the County Council’s approach to Covid19 Recovery, as set out in the report and appendix.

 

Comments as set out above on the specific issues relevant to the remit of this Committee that should be considered in the development of the Recovery Plan to be submitted to Cabinet in September.

Supporting documents: