SAS Frequently Asked Questions
Date produced: 29/05/08
Question Date Of Query Response
Number Response
Having read the FAQ responses to the queries relating to The focus is on delays experienced by those needing minor or major
average waiting time and the numbers waiting for an adaptations. The suggestion that requisitions be used as the basis for
adaptation during the year, is it possible to clarify what type counting is that a requisition should cover all the adaptations needed to
of response is required?There are three possible make the property more liveable for the client. (Hence for example if 4
options:a)An average waiting time for 2.2PD051 and 52 different hand rails and 2 concrete ramps are needed at various points and
based on the total number of items and a count of major covered by a single requisition it is more appropriate to see this as one
and minor items for 2.2PD053 and 54;b)An average minor adaptation, not 6). If later in the year further handrails or other
waiting time per requisition and a count of requisitions, minor adaptations are requisitioned to meet increasing disability then
which could contain more than one item; orc)An average please also count the delay in starting work on the second requisition
2.2PD051 29-May-08 waiting time based on items or requisitions as a client could (assuming the start of work is within 2007-08). We purposely chose to
receive services more than once during the year, with a ask councils to count the time to the start of work not the completion of it
count of clients for numbers waiting during the year. This because we recognised that housing agencies may not be able to track a
could be for a number of items and/or a number of point where the whole requirement was completely met (e.g. some major
requisitions containing multiple items. If it is the latter, the adaptations need a follow up visit once completed to sign off the work
methodology for counting clients needs to be clarified, which may well produce minor adjustments which further lengthen the
should we count each separate requisition or count clients process).
regardless of the number of times they receive a service as
this has a bearing on the results per 10,000 of the
population.
2.2PD053 and 2.2PD054 If requisitions are to be used how Clearly it is up to councils and the agencies they link with to have means
should we treat requisitions that are part processed, i.e. one of satisfying themselves that those needing adaptations are not suffering
or more items are waiting for work to start? unnecessary delays: the SAS measures are probably the least demanding
option in terms of collection but councils may well want to establish fuller
recording systems.
Given that we are looking at all breaks, not just those Every council will do this differently - we assume accounts will evidence
funded by the Carers Grant, are you aware of what method where money is spent on breaks?
2.1CS059 28-May-08 other authorities are using to extract the financial
information required to give the breakdown for each client
group in £‟s.
Please can you tell me the rational around excluding short RAP now counts all respite care in Carers tables C2. We have followed this
stay respites from this question is this purely as a result of change.
2.1LD042 28-May-08 the changes to the RAP Form‟s/Definition. Should we
include respite stays within this question?
The template does not allow me to input 2,442 for the 2007- When the SAS is returned, I would include a note to your local PIM about
2.1OP307 28-May-08 08 Outturn, as the limit is 2,300. the value you would like to submit for this question. This can then be
passed on to the Performance Assessment Team.
Could you clarify for me the requirement for questions Please provide the actual numbers of people who waited for any period in
2.2PD053/2.2PD054. the year and not the number of adaptations
The guidance states "
Councils are asked to report the total numbers of people in
2007-08 who waited for any period in the year for work on
a major or minor adaptation to start (as defined in the
denominators for 2.2PD051 and 2.2PD052).
2.2PD053 28-May-08
Do you want us to provide the actual number of people who
got a minor/major adaptation, as everyone will have waited
some time. Alternatively is it the number of the adaptations
as is implied in the guidance for 2.1PD052?
Can you check the IPF and England figures in these Missing data:
questions. 2007-08 IPF and England data for 4.1LD099 and The IPF and England figures for 2006-07 and 2007-08 Plan for 4.1LD099
4.1LD100 are both missing but were provided on PADI files. have been deliberately excluded from the 2008 SAS as the data is
IPF and England data for 4.1LD101 and 4.1LD102 are very unreliable for comparative purposes.
different from that provided on the PADI files.
Differences in IPF data:
I presume that when you refer to data in 'the PADI files' you mean the data
presented in one of the two Self Assessment Survey Analysis Tools on the
PADI CD ROM. The January 2008 PADI CD ROM contains two versions of
this tool, one using unrevised population data and old IPF groupings, and
one using revised population data and new IPF groupings. I suspect that
you have examined the data using the 'wrong' version of the tool. The data
4.1LD099 28-May-08 presented in the 2008 SAS uses the revised population data and new IPF
groupings.
The two Self Assessment Survey Analysis Tools are located in the following
subfolders of the 'National Information' folder on the CD ROM:
OLD (unrevised population data and old IPF groups):
a) Self Assessment Survey Analysis Tool
NEW (revised population data and new IPF groups):
j) Analysis Tools updated with 2006 ONS and New IPF groups>a) Self
Assessment Survey Analysis Tool
In question 4.7GN124, Children with disabilities aged 16-17 Data for disabled young people and carers for disabled young people are
are calculated separately. However, in the questions included to provide continuity over time - they are principally now the
4.7GN132 - 4.7GN144 16-17 year olds are not mentioned concern of Ofsted and DSCF
4.7GN132 28-May-08 at all. Should these clients be included in the appropriate
client group questions along with the adults aged 18-64, or
should they be included in the carers section (questions
4.7GN137 and 4.7GN144)?
We have zero service users for this client group therefore Please complete each of the green cells in the first six columns to the right
entries cannot add to 100% unless we enter 100% as less of the 4.7GN142 by inputting 0.0 as the response. This will leave the total
4.7GN142 28-May-08 than £200 which would be technically correct but probably column blank.
misleading.Can you please indicate how you wish us to
complete that section
Please can you provide advise on: Disability equalities Although these Schemes have already been implemented, I would put in an
scheme - The Council has achieved implementation of Level answer for levels 1 and 2 to prevent them being marked up as 'Missing'
5.4GN157 28-May-08 1 and 2 in 2007. Do we still need to populate the green when the data is processed. I would use option 1 in each case.
areas (i.e. 5.4GN157 & 5.4GN158)
Questions 5.4GN160-5.4GN161 has no appropriate category If you click on the option, press delete and this should clear the box.
to choose. Recent FAQs suggest that these are left blank,
however, once you have clicked on an potion, you cannot
clear the box so currently our responses are inaccurate.
5.4GN160 28-May-08 Please advise.
[DN. this query has come from Northumberland Care Trust -
I've had to put Northumberland in "Details" tab but correct
info is in Additional Information tab]
Number of learning disabled people known to the CASSR Does this mean we have to have an open case with them during the
aged 18 to 64 helped into paid work in the year.; and year?No, services do not have to have been in place to be counted in
6.4LD170- Number of learning disabled people aged 18 to64 6.4LD270. The person must though have „been known‟ during the year.
known to the CASSR helped into voluntary work in the Examples of this could include: assessed and no services offered, Accessing
year.) does this mean we have to have an open case with (and recorded accessing) a service that is grant funded by your adult social
them during the year? To explain further, we have a small services budget. In your specific example, the question would hinge on the
number of people who are known to us and were being funding stream of the service they accessed. If this is commissioned using
actively care managed until recently, and who appear on our Adult Social Care funds then include them. If this is a generic service of the
6.4LD168 28-May-08 client record system. However, their cases are currently council, to which ASC does not contribute, then do not include.
closed, and we have no active involvement during the
financial year. However, they have accessed services
provided/commissioned by the council to help them into
work during that year. Should we be including these people
in the answer to this question or not? They are known to
us, do have LD,and are accessing paid/vol work as a result
of assistance provided by the council.
6.4LD170Could you confirm whether the numbers for this The count required is of any LD adults known to the CASSR newly starting
6.4LD170 28-May-08 indicator regarding LD helped into voluntary work are NEW voluntary work not just those newly known to the CASSR in the year
people known to the CASSR or ALL people known to CASSR
in year.
A query has arisen re the technical definitions of the Please ignore all but the first paragraph on page 107 of the guidance.
following: 7.2GN197 page 102 should be completed with the following guidance in
mind:
7.2 GN195 Councils are expected to ensure that local multi-agency procedures for
identification of, and responding to, vulnerable adults are known to relevant
7.2GN196 staff employed by all registered adult service providers in their council area.
Councils will often use training grants to procure awareness training for
7.2GN195 28-May-08 7.2GN197 these providers and need to have some knowledge of how far the providers
have been able to ensure that their staff have had awareness training. This
The notes for 196 refers to “awareness raising” whereas the item seeks an estimate of the extent of council commissioned or funded
question is about training to “identify and assess risk”, training covering these staff. (Some independent sector staff will have had
similarly the notes for 197 refers to training to identify and basic awareness training as part of a NVQ or other training course - this
assess risk whereas the question refers to “some training in item is more specific in its focus on the coverage of local training on
protection” which indicates all levels of training, including arrangements for responding to needs of vulnerable adults).
awareness raising.
We think the notes for 196 refer to 195, the notes for 197 As noted on page 102 this relates to the number of staff in post on 31
refer to 196 and that the notes for 197 are missing. March, who had attended relevant council funded or commissioned training
at any time, not just those who had received training in the 2007-08 year.
Could you clarify please – contact me if you aren‟t sure
what I mean.
Please qualify, what constitutes a formal agreement. Do A formal agreement will include S31 S28 and S 75 agreements as well as
these questions just cover previous Section 31 agreements any other formal agreements between the Local Authority and NHS
8.1GN213 28-May-08 or also include previous Section 28 Agreements, where organisations. The formal nature of any of these other agreements is
Section 75 Agreements are not in place. predicated on the basis for those listed above i.e. there is an agreement
that covers legal accountability, funding arrangements, governance,
monitoring and reporting arrangements.
The council state that they set up learning and then The local authority may include days where a training course has been
8.3GN246 28-May-08 students do not attend. Is the PAF indicator linked to arranged for a student who is subsequently absent when the course runs.
planned days or actual days? The principle being to give credit to the LA for money spent in providing the
training.
This doesn't allow a figure of 500% increase, is there When the SAS is returned to us I would let your local PIM know what figure
9.2GN304 28-May-08 anyway we can show this? you want to submit for this question. They can then let the performance
assessment team know.
Page 143 of SAS guidance states CSCI will issue further The B12 and B17 PIs are unchanged from 2006-07; unfortunately the
guidance as to the cells to be reported in SAS as soon as changes to the PSS EX1 made by the IC have meant that a single column
the revised PSSEX1 is to hand. Same point for both (previously column I) cannot be used for the calculation in 2007-08. The
9.2OP263 and 9.2OP264 So first question is has this information required is the same as in previous years, but the column and
guidance now been issued by CSCI?Second point is that I row numbers have changed.2007-08 B12 Numerator:Gross total cost for
have been told by colleagues in other councils that residential and nursing care and home help/care for all adult client groups
completing B12 and B17 is voluntary for the SAS return in and older people during the year. Source: PSS EX1 sheet „Incl SSMSS‟
2007/2008. I can‟t find a reference anywhere to completion column C + column D [Gross total cost (Current expenditure including
9.2OP263 28-May-08
being voluntary. Is it indeed voluntary to complete the SAS capital charges]): own provision (including joint arrangements) + Provision
for this information? Please clarify. by othersLines ({B2 + B3 + B6} + {C2 + C3 + C6} + {D2 + D3 + D6} +
{E2 + E3 + E6}) (The cost of [nursing care placements + residential care
placements + home care] for each of the four client groups {older people
(aged 65 or over) including older mentally ill}, {adults aged under 65 with
a physical disability or sensory impairment}, {adults aged under 65 with
learning disabilities} and {adults aged under 65 with mental health needs}
Notes:The line references are in Column A of „Incl SSMSS‟.The numerator is
the sum of the 12 line items in each of the two columns, that is the sum of
24 cells in the „Incl SSMS‟ sheet.The Grants to voluntary organisations are
excluded.
2007-08 B17 Numerator:Gross total cost for home care/home help for all
adult client groups and older people during the year.Source: PSS EX1 sheet
Incl SSMSS „Incl SSMSS‟ column C + column D [Gross total cost (Current
expenditure including capital charges]): own provision (including joint
arrangements) + Provision by otherslines (B6 + C6 + D6 + E6)(home care
for older people (aged 65 or over) including older mentally ill, adults aged
under 65 with a physical disability or sensory impairment, adults aged
under 65 with learning disabilities and adults aged under 65 with mental
health needs).Note:The numerator is the sum of the 4 line items in each of
the two columns, that is the sum of 8 cells in the „Incl SSMS‟ sheet.
Re the response on 29/04/2008. Is it ONLY activity in Yes, there is confusion. The focus here is on LT neurological conditions as
relation to neurological conditions that you want reported? covered in the original NSF not the wider LTC work of PCTS and CASSRS
The LTC team at the DH have advised that the model which has been developed subsequently
referred to in the guidance relates to generic long term
1.2OP011 27-May-08 conditions and not specifically neurological. Further that
there is some confusion between the long term
(neurological) NSF and what are the wider group of people
with LTC‟s who are covered by the DH LTC programme.
The delayed transfers figure for 07/08 seems to have been 1.3OP010 Delayed Transfer of Care data:
populated since SAS issued in April yet the guidance says The 2008 SAS shows the Delayed Transfers of Care data supplied to CSCI
that it will be May before this happens. Your response yo a by the Department of Health. Delayed Transfers of Care data from the
previous questions says that there is uncertainty about week-ending 20-May-2007 have been entered to a new system named
accuracy of the data When will we know our definitive UNIFY2. Councils have been unable to modify data entered to this system
outturn? and therefore have been unable to correct any errors. A letter regarding
Also under this item there are 2 tables and a chart which revisions of delayed transfers of care data, was sent to all councils with the
cover delays attributable to CASSR . In the outturn table ( 2008 SAS from Clare Hiblin at the Department of Health. This letter
presumably also not validated) our authority has 4 delays referred councils to the Department of Health web page showing the 2007-
per 100,000 but the chart reads zero. Could you please 08 figures entered to the UNIFY2 system:
1.3OP010 27-May-08
explain
http://www.performance.doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/latest_DTOC.xls
The letter also stated:
"If there are revisions that you feel need to be made to the data, then
these should be discussed with, and then made by, your usual contacts
within the relevant NHS Trust. They will then need to contact the
Department of Health and we will make the necessary changes to the
data."
If there are any revisions to be made to your council's figures you should
follow this procedure.
Chart showing delayed discharges attributable to CASSR:
There is a fault in this chart that causes the 2007-08 Outturn value for the
rate of delayed discharges to be shown as zero for all councils. This
problem will be fixed in the SAS returned to you. The value in the table is
correct.
It is important to follow the definition/categories for primary client type as
Can you clarify a query in respect of 2.1LD042 – Total
set out in the RAP guidance and that primary client categorisation is a
number of adults with learning disabilities who had planned
professional decision. Each individual has n overarching classification and so
short-term breaks in their care plan; it the definition of
there should be no double counting.
respite has now been classed a carer service, where there
2.1LD042 27-May-08 are clients who receive a regular series of short term breaks
to support the carers would you class this as being part of
the client‟s care plan or only as part of the carer‟s care plan.
Should service users in Supporting People be included in Any queries regarding telcare should be a directed to: telecare@csip.org.uk
2.1OP035 27-May-08 Section 3 i.e. Other agencies without CASSR input?
2.2pd051 – does this question include minor adaptations to The scope of the SAS is any adaptations commissioned by the CASSR from
2.2PD051 27-May-08 Housing Association and Local Authority housing? any housing provider on behalf of a CASSR client.Hence the start of work
on any such adaptations asked for before the stock transfer or after it still
need to be covered
Can you please clarify what you are looking for in response Each requisition by a CASSR for an adaptation/s to be done where work is
to the is question please – do you want to know how many started in the year should be analysed in terms of the weeks from the
people waited for a service in 07/08 , i.e how many people requisition to the start of the work to provide the average wait for items
2.2PD054 27-May-08 requested a service and were eligible - Or the number of 2.2PD051 and 052. The number of these requisitions is what is being asked
people who actually had work start on their property in for in 2.2PD053 and 054.
07/08 ? we think its the second but the wording of the
question and the guidance are confusing.
The 2006/07 previous disaggregated data which is normally This data is not included in the initial version of the SAS sent to councils,
placed throughout the document is missing e.g. D40_OP, but is added after councils have submitted their Self Assessment Surveys
3002OF 27-May-08 D40_LD, HH1_IHC_OP, GFS_CAR etc.Is this correct or will a and is included in the version returned to councils.
fix-it be issued to fix this problem?
Please can you confirm the age restriction of 18 to 64 in this This is correct and is taken from the RAP guidance and should be consistent
question relates to the cared for person and not the carer? with that reurn: The number of carers caring for learning disabled people
4.1LD099 27-May-08 aged 18 -64 who have received either an assessment or review separately
from the client during the year.
Please can you confirm the age restriction of 65 and over in This is correct and is taken from the RAP guidance and should be consistent
this question relates to the cared for person and not the with that reurn: The number of carers caring for learning disabled people
carer? aged 65 or over who have received either an assessment or review
separately from the client during the year.
4.1LD101 27-May-08
Source: until 2003-04: RAP A4 form, column 1 for those aged 65 and over.
2004-05: RAP form C1, column 1, rows 3, 4 (aged 65+)
2005-06 onwards: RAP C1 form, page 2, column 1, and section for age
65+, row 3
I am involved with the London Single Assessment Process The Current Summary Record (formerly known as the Single Assessment
leads group and would like some clarity for this group on a Summary) was always intended to be used as the tool to capture up dated
question in the Self Assessment Survey which refers to the and on going information. It should draw on a range of sources to provide
Single Assessment Summary (4.5OP090). My the up to date picture of health and care needs and the services received to
understanding is that the summary is no longer an extant meet these
4.5OP090 27-May-08 document (although it was considered to be part of SAP
documentation in the early stages of SAP implementation).
Does reference to a "summary" then mean the assessment
itself or a care plan or other document that "summarises"
someones care?
Grade & descriptor 5.2, Annexe 1 – (ie.There is universal The data mapped to grade descriptor 5.2 will be drawn from SAS item 5.2
access to initial assessments to determine the needs of the GN where in the notes it states:
individual, regardless of whether a person intends to self- "Please include reference to how you ensure information, advice or
fund, and whether they are eligible for CASSR provision) assessment are universally available, even to those who plan to self fund."
5.2GN167 27-May-08 and the definition for 5.2GN167 do not appear to be the
same. Annexe 1is related to assessment whereas the
definition is prior to the point of assessment. Please can you
clarify.Thank you.
Please confirm that the executive summary in lines Yes the sign off relates to section 8.1
8.1GN207 27-May-08
8.1GN207 to 8.4GN211 refers to Section 8.1.
Could you clarify section 9.2GN274 to 9.2GN284? The See notes on p 134 - CSCI will have the 2007-08 outturn provisional data
9.2GN274 27-May-08 headers appear to be for 2008-9 whereas one would expect from the Information Centre in August - we are asking for councils'
2007-8. expected 2008-09 position in these cells
9.2GN302 Does this mean charges in relation to our own The issues raised by this enquiry, which are correct to highlight the CRAG,
homes or the independent sector? The Audit Commission are such that we do not now expect a response from councils to 9.2GN302
guidance seems to be generic guidance that assumes a for charges to people using care home provision.
9.2GN302 27-May-08 service is provided directly by the local authority.
Do we use the minimum care charge increase or the full cost
increase in LA establishments?
Latest FAQ has implication of an issue with locked cells in Data provided previously in the SAS cannot unfortunately now be altered.
2006/2007 and for 2007/2008 plan. Underlying is same If there are issues of data quality these need to be discussed with the BRM.
2.1LD042 23-May-08 issue as for 4.6LD103 above with confusion over
definitions.Can we unlock the cells for 2006/2007 and for
2007/2008 plan? Or can CSCI help us with unlocking same
cells? Please advise.
The council are seeking guidance in respect of 2.1PD51-54 The scope of the SAS is any adaptations commissioned by the CASSR from
and wish to establish whether they should be counting any any housing provider on behalf of a CASSR client.Hence the start of work
adaptations which occurred after the Housing Stock on any such adaptations asked for before the stock transfer or after it still
Transfer, 11 Feb. At this point all housing stock in Bracknell need to be covered
2.2PD051 23-May-08 transferred over to a Hsng Assoc. They also want to
establish whether or not they report adaptations which
started after the stock transfer.
Guidance appreciated.
Latest FAQ has implication of an issue with locked cells in Due to the confusion around the definition for this question, CSCI cannot
2006/2007 and 2007/2008 plan. 4.6LD103 relates to all be 100% certain that councils have answered the question correctly.
ages 18+ and not just 18-64 the revised figure is 219. Last
year there must have been the same confusion since I think As such, CSCI will be disregarding this question and not using the data
4.6LD103 23-May-08 the figure submitted was also only 18-64. All ages 18+ last obtained from the SAS.
year would have been 228. Can we unlock the cells for
2006/2007 and for 2007/2008 plan? Or can CSCI help us
with unlocking same cells? Please advise.
re Outcome 8.1GN207/209/211 The executive summary is covered by the following questions, 8.1GN199-
205.
As this year's SAS does not contain an Executive Summary
8.1GN207 23-May-08 please can you advise how the document is to be endorsed
by the the people in the above questions.
On reading the SAS guidance it's seems as though the Adult The answer to the first question is yes. The second question relates to
Social Care Workforce segment of the Area Based grant 8.3GN256-259, which has now been deleted from the SAS.
replaces the Human Resources Strategy Development Grant
(the HRDSG) and the National Training Strategy Grant (the
NTSG) in 08-09. However can you please offer advice on
the following points with regards to the completion of this
year's SAS:-
8.3GN252 23-May-08
(1) Are Local Authorities expected to provide only the 07-
08 outturn data for the HRSDG and the NTSG?
(2) Are Local Authorities expected to provide info regarding
the 08-09 allocation and the 08-09 plan for the Area Based
Grant.
9.2GN302 Asks for the planned percentage increase in The issues raised by this enquiry, which are correct to highlight the CRAG,
charges to people using care homes as agreed by the are such that we do not now expect a response from councils to 9.2GN302
council. These charges are calculated on a financial for charges to people using care home provision.
assessment which in turn is determined by CRAG (Charges
for Residential Accomodation Guidance) which is based on
various legislation. Charges applied to individuals are
determined by a combination of their individual
circumstances such as benefit increases, changes to works
9.2GN302 23-May-08
pensions and savings and how these are then assessed as
indicated by CRAG; therefore the council does not agree a
percentage increase for care home charges, in line with
others it applies CRAG. We could comment on the average
percentage increase in income we expect from this care
group in 2008/09 but that doesn't appear to be the question
being asked. Could you clarify please.
For this question the SAS form only allows for a percentage The question is seeking an average % increase across all providers with
figure to be inputted whom the CASSR contracted in the year. Hence if most get 4% and some
In our council the increase will be paid on the basis of only 2% probably around 3%.
performance in CSCI inspections of the care homes
concerned. This means that the figure could be between
9.4GN299 22-May-08 0% and 4% or a cash equivalent not linked to a percentage
for fees above £399.10. Additionally all payments are being
reviewed in October on the basis of any further CSCI
inspections which have taken place by this time. What
would be the best way for us answer the above question?
Everytime I save the SAS I an 'Unhandled error has occured Please urgently send the SAS to the APA Mailbox and we will investigate the
3002OF 21-May-08
in the SAS' message issue.
In our SAS 2008 document on question 4.6GN156 the cells This issue has been dealt with by the fixit recently distributed to all
for data to be input to is not titled "Southend" but "Suffolk". councils.
4.4GN156 21-May-08 However the data included for 06/07 and the 07/08 plan
seem to be the numbers supplied by us last year.
Can you confirm this and amend the LA description
At the bottom of the table relating to questions 4.3GN146- Thank you for reporting this problem. I confirm that the values for the rate
52, there is a section „Rate of complaints per 10,000 18+‟. of complaints per 10,000 population aged 18+ from 01/04/05 to 31/03/06
It appears that the two columns that relate to the and from 01/04/06 to 31/03/07 are incorrect. This problem will be fixed in
„complaints received concerning services‟ for 01/04/05- the SAS returned to you
31/03/06 and 01/04/06-31/03/07, do not calculate
4.7GN146 21-May-08 correctly. For example there are approx 400,000 people
18+ in Somerset. There were 51 complaints in 01/04/05-
31/03/06. 51/400,000 * 10,000 = 1.275 not 4.6. However
the complaint sreceived column for 01/04/07-31/03/08
does calculate correctly.
8.1GN209- Has the CEO of the Council endorsed the The executive summary is covered by the following questions, 8.1GN199-
8.1GN209 21-May-08 executive summary? Where is the executive summary entry 205.
box on the SAS document?
Could you please confirm that this will count all services that Yes please include all such commissioned breaks and breaks provided
2.1CS058 20-May-08 count as giving carers a break, whether commissioned directly by the council's care services
(through different County Council funding streams) or
provided by the authority
Whilst we can provide the amount spent from carers grant If it is not possible to provide the overall total of expenditure committed
we are unable to separately identify funding from other please provide what you can and let your BRM have a note that you have
2.1CS060 20-May-08 sources due to the complexity of overlapping had to omit some additional expenditure. The more you can provide the
apportionment. Please advise if it is acceptable to just enter BRM in the way of an estimate of the order of magnitude of this 'missing'
carers grant funding. expenditure the better.
Point 9 of the important points to note in the SAS guidance Queries about what equipment can be included within this definition should
notes for questions 2.1OP033 to 2.1OP035 (number of new be directed to: CSIP at: telecare@csip.org.uk
people aged 65 and over provided with telecare) states
that: "a 'new person' is defined as somebody who has never
had any telecare services before, funded by the CASSR, or
someone who has an upgrade from one item to another in
2.1OP033 20-May-08 the context of the telecare initiative". Please could you raise
the following query with CSCI: Please could we have
clarification as to what constitutes an "upgrade from one
item to another". In particular, does it include people who
were upgraded from a basic community alarm to an alarm
plus telecare sensors during 2007-08?
2.1OP033-035Should we include telecare funded through Queries about what equipment can be included within this definition should
2.1OP033 20-May-08 the Supporting People grant & if so, which of the three be directed to: CSIP at: telecare@csip.org.uk
questions does it fall under?
Please could you clarify for me what figure is required for Each requisition by a CASSR for an adaptation/s to be done where work is
2.2PD053 and 2.2PD054? The wording of the question started in the year should be analysed in terms of the weeks from the
implies that it is the number of people who waited for requisition to the start of the work to provide the average wait for items
adaptations, but the FAQs from last year imply that the 2.2PD051 and 052. The number of these requisitions is what is being asked
2.2PD053 20-May-08 number require is the denominator used to calculate for in 2.2PD053 and 054.
2.2PD051/2.2PD052 – the second figure is larger as some
clients received two or more adaptations during the course
of the year.
08/09 Plan for D55i and ii are mandatory. Could you clarify Just OP for consistency over time - some councils are not yet set up to
whether you want the D55ii plan to be in accordance with measure the does not work as detailed in Although Find functionality is not listed as an option on the toolbars, it is
the SAS instructions. Please advise whether you plan to possible to bring up the "Find" dialogue box by using Ctrl - F. However, as
issue a fix. only the green data entry cells (white cells in the case of the PAF
indicators), are unlocked, the Find functionality will only find information in
these cells once it has been entered. One of the requirements of the SAS
was to protect non-data entry cells in order to prevent information being
3002OF 16-Apr-08 deleted by accident.
The extreme left hand column has been left unlocked in order to be able to
search by question number, in conjunction with the Guidance document,
and there's also toolbar functionality to filter questions by service user
group type to narrow down the list of questions visible at a given point.
Please can you clarify the guidance( on page 18 ) for The requirement is only to include services funded by the adult social care
intermediate care in terms of the following statement "Joint department. What the guidance says is that if you cannot or you have no
NHS/SSD funded services should be split 50:50 between basis for knowing exactly what your constribution is into any joint funding
services. We are not quite sure how this applies. We have a with the NHS for these services then make the split on a 50:50 basis.
service in the day hospital wholely funded by the NHS and
1.2OP001 15-Apr-08 then a Joint Team Service funded by NHS/SSD. How do we The NHS funded day hospital provision cannot be included unless there is
count the activity? Do we count the whole of the activity of an element of adult social care funding as well. If there is a jointly funded
the daycare service and just 50% of the joint Teams's team and you are able to be precise about the adult social care contribution
activity. Please could you explain what should be counted. to the funding for that team and the number of people who benefit because
of the social care contribution then include that number in the count.
Our council is a pilot site for Individual Budgets and The figures for 116 -144 (apart from those which are greyed out) should
therefore the vast majority of our clients using self directed only include those people who are recipients of a direct payment. If the
support are allocated an Individual Budget rather than a recipient of the DP is also in receipt of other funding streams as part of the
Direct Payment. I am aware that under question 145 we IB then they should be included in the DP count as they are receiving a DP.
have the opportunity to describe our progress in
4.7GN116 14-Apr-08 implementing IBs, however what scope is there for us to If they are are in the IB category but not receiving a DP as part of the IB
include our Individual Budget figures in our response to funding stream then they cannot be included in the DP count.
questions 116-144 to give a more accurate picture of the
volume of clients in receipt of Self Directed support.
should the year reference be 2006/07 or 2007/08? If the It should be for 2006-07 because we want to know if the figure was
former, this is the same question as last year. Pls clarify. included in the count for 2006-07 or not.
The item asks specifically: Did you include LD adults in NHS campus
1.3LD015 8-Apr-08 accomodation in what is question LD 102 in 2006-07 becasue we need to
be sure that there was consistecny with the count.
The SAS seems to request targets for 2008/09 on PAF A letter relating to this issue has been circulated to councils.
indicators. However, I thought that the new PIS were
1.2OP009 31-Mar-08 intended to replace PAF?. Not a key issue for us as we are
retaining key PAF indicators locally anyway and have
already set targets, but just wanted to know your thoughts
about this apparent contradiction
I could do with some advice/clarification re Self Assessment The original DIS questions concerned average length of wait to start of
Survey and Indicator work on minor or major adaptations (in weeks). E.g in DIS for 2004-05 for
major adaptations :
2.1PD047
Numerator:
2.1PD045
The number of weeks from the request for the adaptation/grant to the start
These cover waiting list for Major Adaptations and waiting of work on site/approval of the grant summed for all the cases in the
list for Major Adaptations per 10,000 pop denominator. Requests may have been made before 1st April 2004.
In a nutshell I've been studying them in detail for some time Denominator:
and I'm really struggling to make sense of them !
2.5LD047 18-Mar-08 All cases where a housing agency started work on an adaptation likely to
Essentially although the measure is meant to relate to cost £1,000 or more, gross, (or provided a grant to carry out such an
people waiting for major adaptations It actually appears to adaptation) during the year 2004-05 resultingfrom a request from Social
be measuring anyone in the process of having a Major Services.
Adaptation .We had some 1183 people in that process
whereas the norm was seen as being 448 . This was seen as The measure is the numerator divided by the denominator.
being a negative but I would actually see it as a positive in
that we have worked very hard with District councils to This measure and its counterpart for minor adaptations became 2.1PD045
increase funding for Major Adaptations and consequently and 2.2PD044 in SAS 2006-07. We added in extra measures in 2006-07
there are far more people going through the Major SAS for the first time as follows :
Adaptations DFG process .
I would really value some feedback on this . Am I 2.2PD046- Promoting Independence: Numbers of those waiting for minor
misunderstanding the indictor ? adaptations as in 2.2PD044.
Should the following will be included in the D75 Practice The PI is concerned with the contribution towards training new SWs of adult
Learning - Adults only: care staff in councils, or in other agencies where the adult care part of the
council is making a contribution. If the trainee SW is assisted in their
1) Placement days of staff whose substantive post are in training in or through the adult services part of the council then the
Children/families but have started placements within Adults placement days are to be counted - if they are assisted by a placement in a
services children's service (even if they are funded for their training by the adult
part of the council) then this assistance does not count for MR/D75 though
2) Placement days of staff whose substantive post are in it should be included in any parallel PI for children's servcies.
Adults but have started placements in Children/families
8.3GN246 18-Mar-08
services. This in the query days for example 1 would be incvluded in the adult PI -
those for 2 would appear in the children's PI. .
My suspicion is that if the substantive post is Adults it would
be counted in the D75 - Adults only. And if the substantive
post is Children's it would be counted in the D75 - Childrens
only, as this is how it would be recorded on the SSDA001 -
Staffing Return.
But we are not sure, please advise.
Can you please advise we why there is no Technical There is no technical information for Outome 3 as there is no
Information supplied for Outcome 3 within the new SAS numeric/indicator questions.
Guidance document?
The issue with the appendices has been picked up with the new version of
3002OF 17-Mar-08 Also on page 7 - Performance Information Manager contacts the SAS on the internet
- should be Appendix 3 not appendix 4 as stated.
We have received the guidance form for the Self The SAS spreadsheet should hopefully be with councils in the W/C 7th April.
Assessment Survey (SAS) for
2007/8 - thanks. If there are any revisions to the timescale, councils will be informed.
3002OF 17-Mar-08
Can you please confirm the date that the actual spreadsheet
will be issued?
Published by CSCI: Quality, Performance & Methods Directorate
Date Published: June 2008 Review Date: Jan 2009 QPM Doc No: 078/08
ality, Performance & Methods Directorate
Review Date: Jan 2009 QPM Doc No: 078/08