Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Hurley and Councillor Sharp.

There were no public questions received.

The Minutes of the Adults Social Care and Health Scrutiny Board held on 7^th October 2025 are attached for approval.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Adults Social Care and Health Scrutiny Board held on 7^th October 2025 be approved as a correct record.

The minutes of the Greater Manchester Joint Health Scrutiny Committee meeting on 14^th October 2025 are attached.

Members noted that Oldham was only mentioned once in the minutes, and asked the representative of the Council on the Committee how he engaged to best benefit Oldham. The representative, Councillor McLaren, responded to say that he is always raising issues and ensuring there is balanced debate in order to get a response from officers on reports brought to the Committee.

Members queried that ‘potentially 600 staff members’ could be affected by the reforms to ICB operating costs, and asked how many from Oldham would be affected. It was noted that this followed on from the Government announcement around ICB cuts. It was highlighted that monies had not yet been released by the government to pay for redundancies and that details hasn’t been released around the impact.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Greater Manchester Joint Health Scrutiny Committee be noted.

Report detailing the corporate performance indicators for the first and second quarters of 2025/26.

Jayne Ratcliffe presented the report, noting the positives and negatives of the quarter, as well as the scorecard metrics for the service. It was noted that the complaints drop off had come due to the CQC Inspection, which had led to competing demands and priorities.

Members queried whether the reduction in the use of agency staff would save money. It was noted that it would, but the priority was continuity. Members also highlighted that the Q2 complaints had doubled and asked whether there were any trends within the complaints. It was noted that a deep dive into complaint themes was underway, but that the main themes so far were charges for services and financial assessments, but that there was an expectation that the area would improve.

Members queried what the procedure for complaints was and how complaints are categorised. It was advised that some complaints were complex and it was in the best interests of the complainant for the complaint to be investigated. It was noted that complainants were kept in the loop and it would be explained why there was a delay.

Members noted the positives of the report and asked that thanks be passed on to the team for their work. It was noted that amongst the negatives highlighted was rising sickness and it was queried if there were any reasons for this. Members were advised that staff are overworked and that there was a risk of stress and burnout, which was the national picture too. It was noted that there was a focus on supporting returns to work and to help staff stay in work too.

Members asked what had been done on mitigating the impact on service users. It was highlighted that improvement plans and dashboards were in place, and that waiting lists and reviews had faced the biggest impact. It was noted that up to date average waits would be provided, and that the process was going in the right direction.

Members asked what was being done to promote prevention and reduce demand. It was noted that support is needed to prevent people entering the service and that enablement support was being looked at. It was noted that the care population was steady, despite both a rising population and a rising aging population.

Members queried whether social workers stay with the same people. It was noted that they wouldn’t unless it wasn’t safe enough for them to be transferred.

Members asked whether there was a limit for social worker case loads. It was noted that there was but this was done as a weighting system, so staff would not be left with a lot of complex cases. It was also asked whether the council is doing everything it can to keep people at home. It was noted that yes, they were as it provided the best outcomes.

Lois Hall-Jones provided an update on the metrics from Public Health.

Members queried whether weight loss programmes were advice or prescribing. It was noted that there were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

To note the Oldham Safeguarding Adults Board Annual Report 2024/25.

Abigail Pemberton introduced the report.

Members noted the Safeguarding demographics, highlighting the variance in the data. It was noted that there is underreporting in ethnic minority groups, and that there is a public facing communications programme being looked at on how to make residents trust and report safeguarding concerns.

Members welcomed the report, noting that more was being done with less, and highlighted the case studies. It was queried whether this could be sustained. It was highlighted that there was a partnership approach in place, with a focus on preventing. It was also highlighted that the Tiered Risk Assessment and Management (TRAM) protocol also covered those who were not Care Act eligible.

Members acknowledged the challenges outlined in the report, and queried which issue, if addressed, would make the biggest impact. It was noted that knowledge or institutional memory was the most significant one, noting that it would lead to practice improvement.

RESOLVED: That the report be noted.

Jayne Ratcliffe introduced the report. The Adult Social Care Vision and Strategy was set out, including the focus of the strategy being to enable residents to live as independently as possible. The workforce capacity strategy was outlined, and had come on the back of staff engagement session work and feedback.

It was noted that there were 36 vacancies, some of which were being covered by agency staff. The key priorities of the strategy were outlined, and it was noted that the service wanted to be able to retain and develop staff.

Members queried how many vacancies there would be on the structure tree and it was advised that by later in the week, there would be no vacancies on the tree. It was also queried what the cost of carrying vacancies was. It was noted that this would be difficult to calculate and that an answer would be provided outside of the meeting. It was highlighted, however, that there was no overspend on staffing within the service.

Members queried whether, regarding apprenticeships, college leavers had been approached to consider that as a career path. It was noted that there were four Social Care apprenticeships this year as part of a rolling programme. It was noted that it was better to get new staff used to the system of Social Care before offering them apprenticeships. It was noted too that Social Workers give talks to inspire students at the College, in the hopes of encouraging them to take up the career.

Members asked that, in regard to the 36 vacancies, whether there was any scope to work with other authorities to address issues. It was noted that there was generally not enough resources in the system, and that experience was needed too, which were the same challenges across GM. Some work around GM was being done to combat this, and the power of the ten boroughs working together was highlighted.

Members queried whether the life expectancy of the workforce was decreasing, and it was noted that an analysis had never been done into it. It was noted that there was a need to bring in the young as part of succession planning.

RESOLVED: That the Strategy be noted.

To note the 2025/26 Scrutiny Board work programme.

Members queried whether the hospital parking motion from Council could be discussed at the board. It was queried whether it was within the remit of the Board to bring this forward as an item, as it was an NHS issue rather than a Council issue.

The Board reviewed the Key Decision Document.

Members queried why the report on Section 75 Partnership Agreement with the NHS Northern Care Alliance hadn’t been to scrutiny. It was advised that the report had been to the ICB Board, which is a public meeting, and focused on the technical arrangements on governance.

Councillor Hamblett noted that he would write to the Chair of the Scrutiny Board regarding this.

To consider any rule 13 or 14 decisions taken since the previous meeting.

Members noted a Rule 14 decision on the report of the Director of Adults Social Services, entitled – Request for a Direct Award of the Domestic Property Disability Adaptions Framework for the Provision of Level Access Showers and Shower over Baths.