Agenda item

To consider the Performance Assurance Report for Q3 2025/26.

The Deputy Chief Executive (Health & Care) introduced the Performance Assurance Report, noting that the report covered overall performance within the Directorate. It was highlighted that the figures were relatively good despite challenge of demand across the system and that there was an improved customer experience.

Members queried whether job vacancies were open to fill permanently the roles currently being undertaken by agency staff. It was noted that vacancies were open but that the service had struggled to recruit, particularly around mental health posts.

Members queried the statistic of ‘percentage of adult social care providers rated good or outstanding by CQC’, particularly around why the service was not hitting the 80% target. It was highlighted that the figures were not a fair reflection as some providers were waiting for re-ratings by the CQC who had their own backlog. It was also highlighted that the Council does its own due diligence checks on providers too, so there was some assurance around these providers.

Members raised concerns about the ‘TBCs’ in the Directorate Overview, and queried why these officers would not attend the Scrutiny board. It was advised the two posts with ‘TBC’ next to them were only recently appointed and their names were given to members. It was highlighted that they would not be attending the Adults Social Care and Health Scrutiny Board but would be attending the Governance, Strategy and Resources Scrutiny Board, as their work was not specifically within the remit of this Board.

Members highlighted that some services had been brought back in house, and whether that meant that the Council would not be working with Pennine Care on these going forward. It was noted that this agreement had been a multilateral decision around 18 months ago, as part of a fundamental review and was in the best interest of those impacted for the service to be provided by the Council. It was highlighted that this was a different way of doing partnership work and that these arrangements were now the norm across GM.

Members also noted that SARs received and answered had both fallen, and it was noted that there would be a dedicated officer for these requests.

Members questioned how targets are set, and it was noted that for some, work is done with performance colleagues to determine what is ambitious but realistic, whilst others are statutory targets that are set nationally. It was noted that a review of targets might be helpful. Members also queried how our performance compares to other GM authorities, and it was advised that Oldham performs well across GM. It was also highlighted that a groupings such as the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and the GM Group of Directors also help to compare across boroughs.

Members asked about residents of other boroughs being looked after in Oldham and out of borough placements. It was noted that the Council does not record the number of residents of other boroughs placed in Oldham, and that for Oldham residents in out of borough placements, the number was not a lot but still too many, with work ongoing to reduce the number. It was also noted that Oldham’s out of borough numbers compare favourably to other GM authorities.

RESOLVED that the Performance Assurance Report be noted.