FAQ

SAS Frequently Asked Questions Date produced: 29/05/08 Question Number Date Of Response Query Response The focus is on delays experienced by those needing minor or major adaptations. The suggestion that requisitions be used as the basis for counting is that a requisition should cover all the adaptations needed to make the property more liveable for the client. (Hence for example if 4 different hand rails and 2 concrete ramps are needed at various points and covered by a single requisition it is more appropriate to see this as one minor adaptation, not 6). If later in the year further handrails or other minor adaptations are requisitioned to meet increasing disability then please also count the delay in starting work on the second requisition (assuming the start of work is within 2007-08). We purposely chose to ask councils to count the time to the start of work not the completion of it because we recognised that housing agencies may not be able to track a point where the whole requirement was completely met (e.g. some major adaptations need a follow up visit once completed to sign off the work which may well produce minor adjustments which further lengthen the process). 2.2PD051 Having read the FAQ responses to the queries relating to average waiting time and the numbers waiting for an adaptation during the year, is it possible to clarify what type of response is required?There are three possible options:a)An average waiting time for 2.2PD051 and 52 based on the total number of items and a count of major and minor items for 2.2PD053 and 54;b)An average waiting time per requisition and a count of requisitions, which could contain more than one item; orc)An average 29-May-08 waiting time based on items or requisitions as a client could receive services more than once during the year, with a count of clients for numbers waiting during the year. This could be for a number of items and/or a number of requisitions containing multiple items. If it is the latter, the methodology for counting clients needs to be clarified, should we count each separate requisition or count clients 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 funded by the Carers Grant, are you aware of what method 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 stay respites from this question is this purely as a result of 28-May-08 the changes to the RAP Form‟s/Definition. Should we include respite stays within this question? Every council will do this differently - we assume accounts will evidence where money is spent on breaks? 2.1CS059 2.1LD042 RAP now counts all respite care in Carers tables C2. We have followed this change. 2.1OP307 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 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. 2.2PD053 28-May-08 Could you clarify for me the requirement for questions 2.2PD053/2.2PD054. 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). 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? Please provide the actual numbers of people who waited for any period in the year and not the number of adaptations Can you check the IPF and England figures in these questions. 2007-08 IPF and England data for 4.1LD099 and 4.1LD100 are both missing but were provided on PADI files. IPF and England data for 4.1LD101 and 4.1LD102 are very different from that provided on the PADI files. Missing data: The IPF and England figures for 2006-07 and 2007-08 Plan for 4.1LD099 have been deliberately excluded from the 2008 SAS as the data is unreliable for comparative purposes. 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 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 4.1LD099 28-May-08 4.7GN132 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 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 entries cannot add to 100% unless we enter 100% as less 28-May-08 than £200 which would be technically correct but probably misleading.Can you please indicate how you wish us to complete that section Please can you provide advise on: Disability equalities scheme - The Council has achieved implementation of Level 28-May-08 1 and 2 in 2007. Do we still need to populate the green areas (i.e. 5.4GN157 & 5.4GN158) Please complete each of the green cells in the first six columns to the right of the 4.7GN142 by inputting 0.0 as the response. This will leave the total column blank. Although these Schemes have already been implemented, I would put in an answer for levels 1 and 2 to prevent them being marked up as 'Missing' when the data is processed. I would use option 1 in each case. 4.7GN142 5.4GN157 5.4GN160 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. 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 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. 6.4LD168 6.4LD170 6.4LD170Could you confirm whether the numbers for this 28-May-08 indicator regarding LD helped into voluntary work are NEW people known to the CASSR or ALL people known to CASSR in year. A query has arisen re the technical definitions of the following: The count required is of any LD adults known to the CASSR newly starting voluntary work not just those newly known to the CASSR in the year 7.2GN195 Please ignore all but the first paragraph on page 107 of the guidance. 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 these providers and need to have some knowledge of how far the providers 28-May-08 7.2GN197 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 refer to 196 and that the notes for 197 are missing. Could you clarify please – contact me if you aren‟t sure what I mean. Please qualify, what constitutes a formal agreement. Do these questions just cover previous Section 31 agreements 28-May-08 or also include previous Section 28 Agreements, where Section 75 Agreements are not in place. The council state that they set up learning and then 28-May-08 students do not attend. Is the PAF indicator linked to planned days or actual days? This doesn't allow a figure of 500% increase, is there 28-May-08 anyway we can show this? As noted on page 102 this relates to the number of staff in post on 31 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. 8.1GN213 8.3GN246 9.2GN304 A formal agreement will include S31 S28 and S 75 agreements as well as any other formal agreements between the Local Authority and NHS organisations. The formal nature of any of these other agreements is 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 local authority may include days where a training course has been arranged for a student who is subsequently absent when the course runs. The principle being to give credit to the LA for money spent in providing the training. When the SAS is returned to us I would let your local PIM know what figure you want to submit for this question. They can then let the performance assessment team know. 9.2OP263 Page 143 of SAS guidance states CSCI will issue further guidance as to the cells to be reported in SAS as soon as the revised PSSEX1 is to hand. Same point for both 9.2OP263 and 9.2OP264 So first question is has this guidance now been issued by CSCI?Second point is that I have been told by colleagues in other councils that completing B12 and B17 is voluntary for the SAS return in 2007/2008. I can‟t find a reference anywhere to completion 28-May-08 being voluntary. Is it indeed voluntary to complete the SAS for this information? Please clarify. The B12 and B17 PIs are unchanged from 2006-07; unfortunately the changes to the PSS EX1 made by the IC have meant that a single column (previously column I) cannot be used for the calculation in 2007-08. The information required is the same as in previous years, but the column and row numbers have changed.2007-08 B12 Numerator:Gross total cost for residential and nursing care and home help/care for all adult client groups and older people during the year. Source: PSS EX1 sheet „Incl SSMSS‟ column C + column D [Gross total cost (Current expenditure including capital charges]): own provision (including joint arrangements) + Provision 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 relation to neurological conditions that you want reported? The LTC team at the DH have advised that the model referred to in the guidance relates to generic long term 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. Yes, there is confusion. The focus here is on LT neurological conditions as covered in the original NSF not the wider LTC work of PCTS and CASSRS which has been developed subsequently 1.2OP011 1.3OP010 The delayed transfers figure for 07/08 seems to have been populated since SAS issued in April yet the guidance says that it will be May before this happens. Your response yo a previous questions says that there is uncertainty about accuracy of the data When will we know our definitive outturn? Also under this item there are 2 tables and a chart which cover delays attributable to CASSR . In the outturn table ( presumably also not validated) our authority has 4 delays per 100,000 but the chart reads zero. Could you please 27-May-08 explain 1.3OP010 Delayed Transfer of Care data: The 2008 SAS shows the Delayed Transfers of Care data supplied to CSCI by the Department of Health. Delayed Transfers of Care data from the week-ending 20-May-2007 have been entered to a new system named UNIFY2. Councils have been unable to modify data entered to this system and therefore have been unable to correct any errors. A letter regarding revisions of delayed transfers of care data, was sent to all councils with the 2008 SAS from Clare Hiblin at the Department of Health. This letter referred councils to the Department of Health web page showing the 200708 figures entered to the UNIFY2 system: 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 set out in the RAP guidance and that primary client categorisation is a professional decision. Each individual has n overarching classification and so there should be no double counting. 2.1LD042 Can you clarify a query in respect of 2.1LD042 – Total number of adults with learning disabilities who had planned short-term breaks in their care plan; it the definition of respite has now been classed a carer service, where there 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. 2.1OP035 Should service users in Supporting People be included in 27-May-08 Section 3 i.e. Other agencies without CASSR input? 2.2pd051 – does this question include minor adaptations to 27-May-08 Housing Association and Local Authority housing? Any queries regarding telcare should be a directed to: telecare@csip.org.uk The scope of the SAS is any adaptations commissioned by the CASSR from 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 2.2PD051 2.2PD054 Can you please clarify what you are looking for in response to the is question please – do you want to know how many people waited for a service in 07/08 , i.e how many people 27-May-08 requested a service and were eligible - Or the number of people who actually had work start on their property in 07/08 ? we think its the second but the wording of the question and the guidance are confusing. Each requisition by a CASSR for an adaptation/s to be done where work is started in the year should be analysed in terms of the weeks from the requisition to the start of the work to provide the average wait for items 2.2PD051 and 052. The number of these requisitions is what is being asked for in 2.2PD053 and 054. 3002OF 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 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 aged 18 -64 who have received either an assessment or review separately 27-May-08 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. 4.1LD099 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 The Current Summary Record (formerly known as the Single Assessment Summary) was always intended to be used as the tool to capture up dated and on going information. It should draw on a range of sources to provide the up to date picture of health and care needs and the services received to meet these 4.5OP090 I am involved with the London Single Assessment Process leads group and would like some clarity for this group on a question in the Self Assessment Survey which refers to the Single Assessment Summary (4.5OP090). My understanding is that the summary is no longer an extant 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? 5.2GN167 Grade & descriptor 5.2, Annexe 1 – (ie.There is universal access to initial assessments to determine the needs of the individual, regardless of whether a person intends to selffund, and whether they are eligible for CASSR provision) 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 8.1GN207 to 8.4GN211 refers to Section 8.1. Could you clarify section 9.2GN274 to 9.2GN284? The 27-May-08 headers appear to be for 2008-9 whereas one would expect 2007-8. 9.2GN302 Does this mean charges in relation to our own homes or the independent sector? The Audit Commission guidance seems to be generic guidance that assumes a 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? 27-May-08 Latest FAQ has implication of an issue with locked cells in 2006/2007 and for 2007/2008 plan. Underlying is same 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 and wish to establish whether they should be counting any adaptations which occurred after the Housing Stock Transfer, 11 Feb. At this point all housing stock in Bracknell 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 2006/2007 and 2007/2008 plan. 4.6LD103 relates to all ages 18+ and not just 18-64 the revised figure is 219. Last year there must have been the same confusion since I think 23-May-08 the figure submitted was also only 18-64. All ages 18+ last 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. The data mapped to grade descriptor 5.2 will be drawn from SAS item 5.2 GN where in the notes it states: "Please include reference to how you ensure information, advice or assessment are universally available, even to those who plan to self fund." 8.1GN207 9.2GN274 Yes the sign off relates to section 8.1 See notes on p 134 - CSCI will have the 2007-08 outturn provisional data from the Information Centre in August - we are asking for councils' expected 2008-09 position in these cells The issues raised by this enquiry, which are correct to highlight the CRAG, are such that we do not now expect a response from councils to 9.2GN302 for charges to people using care home provision. 9.2GN302 Data provided previously in the SAS cannot unfortunately now be altered. If there are issues of data quality these need to be discussed with the BRM. 2.1LD042 2.2PD051 The scope of the SAS is any adaptations commissioned by the CASSR from 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 Due to the confusion around the definition for this question, CSCI cannot be 100% certain that councils have answered the question correctly. As such, CSCI will be disregarding this question and not using the data obtained from the SAS. 4.6LD103 re Outcome 8.1GN207/209/211 As this year's SAS does not contain an Executive Summary 23-May-08 please can you advise how the document is to be endorsed by the the people in the above questions. The executive summary is covered by the following questions, 8.1GN199205. 8.1GN207 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 0708 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 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. 9.2GN302 9.4GN299 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 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 in the SAS' message In our SAS 2008 document on question 4.6GN156 the cells for data to be input to is not titled "Southend" but "Suffolk". 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 21-May-08 At the bottom of the table relating to questions 4.3GN14652, there is a section „Rate of complaints per 10,000 18+‟. It appears that the two columns that relate to the „complaints received concerning services‟ for 01/04/0531/03/06 and 01/04/06-31/03/07, do not calculate 21-May-08 correctly. For example there are approx 400,000 people 18+ in Somerset. There were 51 complaints in 01/04/0531/03/06. 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. Please urgently send the SAS to the APA Mailbox and we will investigate the issue. This issue has been dealt with by the fixit recently distributed to all councils. 3002OF 4.4GN156 Thank you for reporting this problem. I confirm that the values for the rate of complaints per 10,000 population aged 18+ from 01/04/05 to 31/03/06 and from 01/04/06 to 31/03/07 are incorrect. This problem will be fixed in the SAS returned to you 4.7GN146 8.1GN209 8.1GN209- Has the CEO of the Council endorsed the The executive summary is covered by the following questions, 8.1GN19921-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 20-May-08 count as giving carers a break, whether commissioned (through different County Council funding streams) or provided by the authority Whilst we can provide the amount spent from carers grant we are unable to separately identify funding from other 20-May-08 sources due to the complexity of overlapping apportionment. Please advise if it is acceptable to just enter carers grant funding. Yes please include all such commissioned breaks and breaks provided directly by the council's care services If it is not possible to provide the overall total of expenditure committed please provide what you can and let your BRM have a note that you have had to omit some additional expenditure. The more you can provide the BRM in the way of an estimate of the order of magnitude of this 'missing' expenditure the better. 2.1CS058 2.1CS060 2.1OP033 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 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 20-May-08 the Supporting People grant & if so, which of the three questions does it fall under? Please could you clarify for me what figure is required for 2.2PD053 and 2.2PD054? The wording of the question implies that it is the number of people who waited for adaptations, but the FAQs from last year imply that the 20-May-08 number require is the denominator used to calculate 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 whether you want the D55ii plan to be in accordance with 20-May-08 the new definition for NI 132 (ie 18-64 and 65+ age groups); whether you are expecting it to be just the target for older people? There is limited guidance on this question. I am assuming that the guidance notes that refer to 4.6GN157/158 actually relate to 155/156. Is this the case? If so the 20-May-08 guidance suggests that the data for 156 can be sourced from the RAP P2f but I can not see how this would be done. Would it be possible to provide a more detailed descriptor of how this data can be extracted from this RAP proforma? Queries about what equipment can be included within this definition should be directed to: CSIP at: telecare@csip.org.uk Each requisition by a CASSR for an adaptation/s to be done where work is started in the year should be analysed in terms of the weeks from the requisition to the start of the work to provide the average wait for items 2.2PD051 and 052. The number of these requisitions is what is being asked for in 2.2PD053 and 054. 2.1OP033 2.2PD053 4.1OP083 Just OP for consistency over time - some councils are not yet set up to measure the < 65s 4.4GN156 The SAS item numbers at the foot of page 86 in the SAS guidance should be 4.6GN155 and 156 not a.6GN157 and 158. Some commissioning of some APS services in some councils includes APS provision of day support and temporary stays as in these service types in RAP P2f. If this is so, and if the council can identify numbers using such support in the year, this is what should be supplied in 4.6GN156. 7.1GN185 Numbers of carers who have allegedly been abused is what the question is Does this refer to the numbers of carers who we have allegations of having abused a Vulnerable Adult? Or is it the looking for. Alleged abuse of other vulnerable adults by carers is covered in other cells. number of carers who have been abused by a Vulnerable Adult ? We have recorded data for the former case, but not the 20-May-08 latter. Also, to complicate the issue - we do get circumstances where one vulnerable adult abuses another vulnerable adult, in which case we would not necessarily record them as a “carer” - but should we?! On a spreadsheet sent out before the SAS guidance was distributed it stated there was no change from 06/07 to 07/08. However, looking back through the past three years I have noticed there are difference to this years SAS for 20-May-08 example: 7.2GN196:The guidance states 'no change' from last year. The FAQs last year identified relevant staff as including (amongst others) staff codes 2.40 to 2.86. The notes with this year‟s return identify the staff codes (amongst others) as 2.40 to 2.87. Given our position we don't know how to answer sect 8.1 which asks about lead this and that from drop down menus. 20-May-08 We are now a genuine joint partnership with managers empowered to act for both organisations, so no longer "leads" or "stages". Can you advise? 20-May-08 Does this include discharge grant? There has been this minor change to the scope of the SSDS001 lines, relating to OT aides and related staff. Also the terminology CSCI uses has changed to 'people whose circumstances make them vulnerable'. 7.2GN195 Please use the 'other' drop down menu to describe the nature of the partnerships and this can be picked up with the BRM. 8.1GN201 8.1GN223 8.3GN244 The denominator for this indicator refers to the number of 20-May-08 staff identified in 8.3GN246. As 246 is the D75 Practice Learning Indicator is this the correct reference? For 81GN223 please use the drop down box options to include the discharge grant. D75 only covers social work posts - this denominator is all employees of the CASSR. 7.2GN197 page 102 Please explain CSCI's expectations about training for staff working in registered services other than the council's own registered services about responses to adults whose circumstances make them vulnerable 7.2GN198 19-May-08 Councils are expected to ensure that local multi-agency procedures for identification of, and responding to, vulnerable adults are known to relevant staff employed by all registered adult service providers in their council area. Councils will often use training grants to procure awareness training for 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 item seeks an estimate of the extent of council commissioned or funded training covering these staff. (Some independent sector staff will have had basic awareness training as part of a NVQ or other training course - this item is more specific in its focus on the coverage of local training on arrangements for responding to needs of vulnerable adults). As noted on page 102 this relates to the number of staff in post on 31 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. 2.1OP307 We do require the outturn and planned figure for 2.1OPO36/37 and short text summary for S2.1OPO36. 2.1GNO37 asks about mainstreaming provision and requires a text Total Planned Council Expenditure on Telecare Infrastructure response - format of answer = figure AND 'Of those receiving new telecare services since April 2006, please tell us what evidence you have of the outcomes resulting from the telecare services they have received' 16-May-08 format of answer = short text summary. Please could you confirm that you require the following for 2.1OP307: Total planned council expenditure on Telecare Equipment and service AND Please tell us about the CASSR'splans to mainstream and ensure sustainability of a range of telecare services with partner organsiation from 2008 onwards. Please could you confirm that you require the following for 2.1OP306: 4.5GN115 4.6LD112 - I have 996 characters (with spaces). However It will not let me enter any information into this field Guidance says 250 words (2000 characters )but SAS 16-May-08 Spreeadsheet is only accepting 125 words (1000 characters). Please could you let me know 16-May-08 The question has been tested and it allows 1,000 characters. Please note the 1,000 characters will also count blanks. For this question there are two text boxes in the spreadsheet, each of which will take 1,000 characters, 125 words. 4.7GN138 7.1GN191 When completing sections 4.7GN138 – 4.7GN144 the Thanks for making us aware of this issue, we will correct it once the SAS's supporting graph does not seem to divide into colours are returned. correctly. Whatever figures are put into the table, the graph 16-May-08 only shows purple. This appears to be related to the values in the table ranging from 0 to 100 but appears as though the axis may be from 0 to 1. Could you advise us on this please? Could you please help with an enquiry regarding 7.1GN191- Question 7.1GN191-CSCI is not automatically calculated, it has been CSCI incorrectly listed in the mapping document. Please complete this question. The Mapping document states that this is a New Question16-May-08 Calculated. The SAS will allow data entry. Please advise which the correct option is. There is ambiguity in the definition of the data source for this measure which instructs us to use SR1 Table 1 columns 15-May-08 A through D row 9 (18 to 64‟s only). That would be row 7, as row 9 is for all ages 18+. Question: 7.2GN195 and 196 guidance notes 14-May-08 There are references on page 107 to an old DIS question about training to assess and identify risk Further to my email on Friday are you able to confirm whether I can start to enter to our existing spreadsheet (which includes Suffolk‟s data in error) or will you be 12-May-08 sending a new excel spreadsheet. Due to very tight timescales I need to start entering data immediately so need advice as a matter of urgency. For those older people that fit into more than one category for example older people who also access mental health 12-May-08 services – should they be counted both in the older people category and the other category– ie double counted? SR1 Table 1 Line 9 includes LD residents aged 18-64 and 65+. Please use line 9 to remain consistent with the DIS 2005-06 data for 2217 and SAS 2006-07 4.6 LD 099 (FAQ advice) and ignore the guidance in brackets (Ages 18-64 only) Please ignore all but the first paragraph under the heading notes on page 107 of the SAS guidance This issue has been corrected by a fixit recently distributed to councils. 4.6LD103 7.2GN195 4.4GN156 7.1GN179 Include the count once and count it in the primary category, ie older people rather than mental health. 9.2GN284 8.3GN256 The majority of our „Other Adults‟ services expenditure is The total for this particular question should combine the figures for those related to Supporting People. There is no facility for adults relating to Supporting People PSS AND those exluded from 12-May-08 illustrating this in the 2008-09 questionnaire as there was in Supporting People PSS. In previous years these were reported as two 2006-07. How do you suggest this is addressed? separate figures but for the 2008 SAS it was decided to combine them into a single data entry. The ABG does not technically start until 2008/09 so for Under consultation with the department of health it was decided to remove 2007/08 I'm not sure what you want me to as part of the these questions from the 2008 SAS. ABG when comparing the percentage across the whole 9-May-08 council? Also, in 2008/09, are the NTSG and HRDSG actually The new version of the 2008 SAS guidance reflects the deletions and has replaced in the ABG? We have been given our allocation of been sent to all councils and is available on CSCI's internet. what has been pooled into the ABG and those two grants aren't included. 1.1GN022 Can we include details of how information about healthier lifestyles is made available throughout the Council as a 8-May-08 whole – to include Departments such as leisure / housing and others (or are these questions specific to Family Services - who have Social Services responsibility). Please could you clarify to which figure this pertains? We have both:1)The provisional number of adults with HIV/AIDS living within the council area that we have been 8-May-08 working with throughout 2007/08 and which has informed commissioning decisions; 2)The newly updated actual number of adults with HIV/AIDS living within the council area during 2007/08.Which figure should we use for this question? For these questions, do we count people as stated or 8-May-08 episodes i.e. if someone admitted to Intermediate Care 3 times during the year, would this count as 1 or 3? Yes details of work across the organisation should be included as well as the work that is undertaken with external partners. 1.2HA020 1 - see Notes which specify those known to the council, not all those in the area. However you may want to reflect on the difference between the data in 1.2HA020 and the larger figure of all those living in the area in your answer to 1.2HA021. In particular if there is a large difference between the two figures you may want to comment on whether adult care services are being made known to and available to those in need within FACS criteria. 1.2OP004 1.3LD013 „People receiving services‟ means „episodes‟ rather than the number of individuals for the above reasons. Report on services that are funded by the council. Where services are jointly commissioned, estimate the council‟s contribution. We have received a query from one of our operational Each council should be reporting on those resident in campuses who teams for which we need some further guidance. In the originate from that council (as in para 1 of the Definition, not those who are campus population there are a small number of people who living in the campus accommodation who originate from other localities. 8-May-08 are out of area placements with whom neither ourselves nor Planning for re-housing these out of area campus residents will be the Leicestershire County Council have any historical links. How responsibility of the area from which they originate. should out-of-area placements be counted for SAS? If we are providing Carers with breaks in the form of sessions - i.e. an am or pm session, we are counting this as one break. Can you advise whether someone attending 8-May-08 both sessions (i.e. am and pm) should be counted as one break or as two breaks. If a service user goes into a residential placement for 7 consecutive nights to allow the Carer to have a break do you expect LA's to report this as one break of seven breaks. The data needs to be in number of breaks and not hours. This better reflects the variety in support across the different areas and client groups. Thus where the care is provided on the same day over two sessions the carer is only receiving one break and this is what should be reported. Seven consecutive nights should be counted as one break. One night per week over seven weeks would be seven breaks. 2.1CS058 2.1CS058 8-May-08 I have had feedback from an number of LA's who are counting this scenario as both one and seven breaks. 2.1CS059 2.1CS059 - 2.1CS066 Carers of people with ...I assume that carers should each be into only 1 category and I'm also assuming that the older people category takes priority i.e. an older person with dementia would be reported in "older people" rather than in "mental health".I'm also assuming 8-May-08 that "young carers" would also take priority over other categories since young carers would also be carers of people in other categories.Please can you confirm that these assumptions are correct or let me know otherwise. 2.1LD042 - Total number of adults with learning disabilities who had planned short-term breaks in their care plan.The guidance states that this item is based on RAP i.e. "Reference: RAP Table P2s page 1 line 9 (learning disability) column 1."However RAP has now changed so that there is no "planned short term breaks" column.In its place is a column "Short term residential not respite".I could use the 8-May-08 value added in here but it's very much smaller than the number of planned short term breaks as the majority of these were respite cases.So what do I use for this field?a) What's now in the "Short term residential not respite" column ORb) What would have been in the old "Planned short term breaks" column For all but those cared for by young carers the 'user group' of those cared for follows the RAP conventions - so those cared for aged 65+ will be counted as older people, and those aged under 65 should be counted in terms of their primary 'client group'. 2.1CS063 should where possible report all of those cared for by this group of carers regardless of the age / client group of the person cared for. RAP P2s has had the respite care element removed for 2007-08 - it is now reported in C2 as a carers' service. To provide an indication of trends in respite care for this item, if possible please report the numbers of LD adults receiving respite care as a carers service who are included within the total numbers of carers for those with a learning difficulty in RAP Table C2 page 2 rows 3+9 column 1. 2.1LD042 2.1OP033 2.2OP029 2.2OP029 Number of new service users aged 65 and over provided / to be provided with one or more items of Telecare 8-May-08 equipment in their own homes (or equivalent, such as extra care/warden housing)." Does 'or equivalent' include residential care homes that are the permanent residence of the service user? Extra care housing place provided - where building work on 8-May-08 new additional extra care places has started but not yet finished are we OK to include that figure? The council query whether the count of additional extra care housing places refers to units or actual tenancies. 8-May-08 (I imagine this refers to tenancies - I'll ask ESCC to confirm practice ref previously reported data) Telecare services being arranged for those in residential settings have always been excluded from this set of data items. See White Paper definition page 40 and item 6 on page 41. No - any places provided and reported in 2.2OP029 need to be available by 31.3.08 to be let, not in the course of construction / refurbishment Places referred to in this item is the maximum number of potential places available for letting - so if a tenancy is in a unit of accommodation large enough to house a couple it can be counted as two places, even though it may be let to only one person. 2.2OP031 4.1OP094 Our Council need clarification on grant funded – as we don‟t Please see material on the Information Centre website on grant funded give grants. services for scope of this question: http://www.ic.nhs.uk/our-services/improving-social-care-information/social8-May-08 care-collections/collections-2007 Some councils refer to their arrangements to give financial support to voluntary sector organisations providing mainly preventive services as 'service level agreements' rather than 'grants'. E82 - Our figure is high. How do other authorities treat self Note that this PI is not banded in 2007-08 because of difficulties in funding clients within this indicator - we case manage the interpreting good performance. vast majority of people who fund their own packages of care Please report on the basis you used in 2006-07 if possible - trends for your and count them as services provided following assessment. council are the important issue for this unbanded PI. If you have altered However, am aware that other auths simply signpost this the scope of this PI's component measures in RAP for 2007-08 please let 8-May-08 group of people to services and count them under no your PIM know the details and the effects this has had. services provided. Is there any intelligence that CSCI have gathered to suggest this might be the case?Also, E82 has not been banded for 2007/8 and we wonder what the feedback from auths is generally? 4.2GN114 and 5.2GN167 These questions both ask about how “appropriate” and “accessible” information is made available to people who use social care services.It is very difficult to distinguish between the two questions. Can you please provide a clearer steer on what the two questions are asking for? People who use adult social care, young people with long term care needs, carers and potential users of services (including self funders) should be well informed about services. They should have information, which is accurate, accessible, and appropriate in terms of their culture, sexuality, age, gender and religion. 5.2GN167 says : What action has the council taken in 2007-08 to ensure that all residents can access appropriate information and advice about their needs for social care? The latter is more specifically about self funders - I suggest the answers be focussed on self funders here with the wider issue about accessible and appropriate info for those getting ASC inputs be the focus of 4.2GN114. Please exclude carers for disabled children receiving a DP here and in 4.7GN144 so that the data in these sections can be related to the data on DP recipients as at 31.3.08 at 4.7GN125. 4.2GN114 8-May-08 No of people receiving direct payments who have not received direct payments in previous years 0607 and 07.08 - Carers 4.7GN137 8-May-08 Should we include data for carers of disabled children as this cohort has been separated out in 4.7GN124 but it is not made clear in the guidance for 4.7GN137 whether they should be included or excluded in this general 'carers' category. 5.4GN157 5.4GN157 - 5.4GN161 - do we have to select one of 'achieved implementation by 31 March 2008' or 'will be implemented in 2008-09' or is there an option to say not applicable or to leave this 8-May-08 blank? I understand that these are incremental levels, so that if we are, for example, working at implementing level 4, we will not yet be implementing level 5. We have no plans to implement these Equality Standards ( having pursued our own action plan to ensure equality and 8-May-08 diversity issues are addressed) but unlike last year‟s SAS, there is no drop-down option to reflect this. How should we therefore respond? Does this mean New people helped into work during the 8-May-08 year or are we allowed to count people continuing to be supported in work started in previous years In terms of 'Referral' does this mean just a general referral in to adult social care, eg a subset of the Referrals recorded in RAP? 8-May-08 Secondly, how is a 'Completed' case defined? The options for this year or either to select achieved implementation or will be implemented. There is a ladder of implementation and the response should indicate which level has been implemented as of this year and those planned for 08-09. If none have been implemented then leave the box blank 5.4GN158 Please leave these boxes blank and the issue can then be picked up and the about which recognised other standards are being implemented to meet the E&D agenda 6.4LD168 No - please only report those newly starting paid / voluntary work in the year with support from the CASSR. The SAS guidance recognises that there are no standard definitions for work with vulnerable adults at present (see p 105). The measures to be reported are about those worked with under No Secrets and multi agency protection arrangements. Most councils will have appointed a lead officer who coordinates investigation of alleged abuse with partner agencies. This activity is what should be reported. The carers concerned are those who care for other adults. These carers may themselves be subject to alleged abuse in their role as carer. (Abuse by carers of those they care for will be covered in other cells). It also includes registered social landlords, housing associations, and the council's housing department the guidance note p 107 refers to 2 levels of training but the more detailed level of training is not asked for specifically (196 should be the number who have had awareness training reported in 195 over the total relevant staff who need this training (as defined in the SSDS001 rows). 197 which is what proportion of all relevant staff in registered care agencies in the council area other than the CASSR have had awareness training - this is not raised in p106/7. para 2 on p107 refers to 195-197. Please ignore the third paragraph and the NOS reference. 7.1GN179 7.1GN185 What is the definition of carer for this question? Is it a vulnerable adult victim who is also a carer of another 8-May-08 vulnerable adult who does not currently receive Community Services in their own right but is eligible? 8-May-08 What is the definition of a Housing Agency? Does this include Housing with Care/Very Sheltered? I think the guidance note for 196 actually relates to 195 and the guidance note for 197 actually relates to 196. Unsure what the guidance for 197 would be. Please can you clarify. 7.1GN189 7.2GN195 8-May-08 8.1GN227 8.1GN227 - Please can you clarify whether this is about services or agreements. The question says 'please list the services 8-May-08 which have been decommissioned' but the guidance says 'where agreements are decommissioned'. SAS questions 8.1GN213-227 are focussing on joint commissioning / partnership working. Questions 224-227 are seeking information on services which are jointly commissioned but where there are developments, difficulties or where services have ceased as a result of the ending of a s75 agreement. Please provide data about services which have been affected. 8.3GN245 The denominator part of of the question asks that The question refers to directly employed staff. Agency staff are neither 'expenditure on self employed contractors whose work is directly employed or self-employed contractors. 8-May-08 directly relevant to the services provided' be included. Does this include the use of agency staff? Can the figure for this question include Department of Health Grant monies, or should the percentage figure only 8-May-08 include core funding? Please include the whole spend including training grants from DH as the denominator - realistically this will make little difference to the % reported as the HRDSG and NTSG will only be relatively small compared to the councils staffing budget. The grants would normally be excluded from the PSSEX1 total spend of the CASSR but the staffing element of it is not reported in PSSEX1 anyway. The link works for CSCI - it is to the DH publication of May 2006 "Guidance on the statutory chief officer post of the DASS". 8.3GN245 9.1GN268 9.2GN296 9.2GN302 9.4GN298 In guidance 9.1GN268 the second of the 2 links does not 8-May-08 take me to the doc referenced - DASS guidance DH 4134800. Can you tell me what this is and how I can get it please Does this question relate to % of spend or % of numbers of The percentage of supported adults who are supported by block, spot and 8-May-08 people? in house contracts. (p137), not the % of expenditure involved in such contractual arrangements. Re : Care home % increase in charges. We have 2 different Please provide the average increasefor all care home placements. 8-May-08 rates planned (One for under 60, one for over 60). As the template will not accommodate this detail, can you please suggest how we input this ? Can we include in here contracts with homes not in the Bury Yes - please include any contract where the adult supported by your council should be benefitting from a quality premium whether the placement is in 8-May-08 area but which are covered by another councils quality payments schemes i.e. we are paying the quality premium. your council area on in another council area. 3002OF Why is it assumed that there will be a projected reduction of charges for care, what grant funded services is this question assuming people are accessing, what grants and are these different to prior years. What assumptions are being made in relation to intensive rehabilitation in terms of reduced care charges and why is this considered in isolation from 7-May-08 cost reductions. If grant funded services (as defined in the Information Centre collection for November 2007 – i.e. often direct access early intervention services arranged by voluntary organisations with council financial support) are provided as an alternative to e.g. home care or day care there will often be no charge to service users who might otherwise have been charged for services by a council. If rehabilitation is offered, the user may often not be charged for the rehabilitation service (e.g. a short stay in a care home or intensive short term home care) to re-establish their independence. Often if rehabilitation is successful they will not continue to use home care or other services for which the council makes a charge or may use a lower level of such services than if there had been no rehabilitation input. Both 8.3GN242 and 243 (the first 2 SAS measures below) have been unchanged in terms of definitions for some years. The use of 'posts' relates to the 'establishment' to which the council works - so whether the post to be filled or counted in the denominator of either SAS measure is a full time one or a part time one is irrelevant - the count needs to be the number of posts involved. The third measure is a count of working days lost as a percentage of all those employed at 30 September as reported in SSDS001 - here the denominator is full time equivalent employees Further to my previous question, I understand that for this year the codes for the questions have now changed which I've only just been made aware of. The information I require is clarification on certain questions (I have removed the codes as I don't want to cause anymore confusion). 8.3GN252 7-May-08 Should I be using FTE(WTE) or count of posts for the staff turnover denominator (I would have expected this to be headcount of employees rather than posts but this isn't what is suggested in the guidance), and I'm not sure whether I should be using FTE(WTE) or headcount for staff vacancies? 1.2HA021 This box has a Character length of 1500. Although the text We are aware of this issue and will be rectifying it shortly by a fixit 2-May-08 I have inputted comes to 1472 characters (which has been circulated in the next two weeks. accepted) some of it cannot be seen can you advise please? We are trying to find the document referred to on p 129 of the guidance by following the link given: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publicati ons/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4134800 Have tested the link to the DASS document and it works perfectly. If you continue to have problems, please let us know and we will send you a copy. 3002OF 2-May-08 However we are unable to locate any such document and the link only takes us to http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/index.htm. We have tried looking under Publications\Publi ations but can see no reference to the document mentioned and using the search facility does not find the document either. 3002OF The instructions contained within the letter sent to my DASS state that our SAS return should be sent to our APA mailbox on 30th May 2008. I remember some confusion last year 2-May-08 with the time changing from 5pm to 12 noon for receipt of the return. Can you please confirm whether there is a specific time this year? West Sussex report the SAS question 4.6 GN 156 refers to Suffolk and not West Sussex. I can also confirm a similar 2-May-08 situation applies to the Hampshire SAS - may apply to each SAS issued. Do we need to issue a fix-it to rectify this situation ? Although the figures are correct the authority is given as 2-May-08 Suffolk – please change to Lincolnshire. 2007-08 Outturn cell is protected so am unable to input 2-May-08 figure The figure I need to input is £295.449 however it says the 2-May-08 value you have tried to enter is not in the range allowed. Amount in £,000's to zero decimal places greater than or equal to 0. In the guidance its states that we can include health Funding in the response to this question , as long as it is not part of a health facilitator role . What does the term health facilitator refer to? Does this mean that if someone is employed primarily in a role to promote health and well that 1-May-08 would not count? Are we correct in assuming that if health have commissioned an advocacy service we can include this spending in our total? The SAS should NOT be returned to the APA Mailbox, it should be sent to your CSCI regions mailbox by close of play on the 30th May at the very latest. No specific time, just as early as possible on the 30th May. 4.4GN156 We are aware of this issue and will be rectifying it shortly by a fixit circulated in the next two weeks. 4.4GN156 8.3GN247 We are aware of this issue and will be rectifying it shortly with a fixit. The figure for September 2007 has already been provided to the DHs Information centre as part of the SSDS001 return. The figure will be prepopulated in the SAS for it's return to the council in June. If the figure you need to enter is £295,449 you need to just round it down to 295. If the figure you need to enter is £295, you will have to put zero. SAS guidance p 80 says : „Advocacy‟ covers all forms of advocacy for learning disabled people including citizen advocacy and self-advocacy, but excludes advocacy as part of the health facilitator role or as part of other professional or support worker roles. In this context 'Health facilitator' covers LD community nurses and other health care professionals with roles working with LD adults on a 1-1 basis equivalent to social workers and care managers: expenditure on such posts is not within the scope of the SAS measure. If health funds are being used to pay for staff with a specific role to address healthcare needs of LD adults as a group and this involves them in acting as advocates for individual LD adults then this funding can be included. The current PAF C51 definition should be used.If NI 130 is one of the indicators chosen in an LAA then the future plan for this definition will be incorporated in the targets contained there. 8.3GN248 4.5LD097 2.1OP025 These question numbers are PAF indicators for 2007-8. They are included in the New Performance Indicators but are not exactly the same. For example PAF C51 Direct 27-Apr-08 payments is a figure as at 31st March, where as the New Indicator NI130 is Direct payments during the year. For the 2008/9 plan figures which way should we calculate this data? Using the old PAF definition of the new PI definition Please could you clarify the following for SAS data items 6.4LD168-170 6.4LD169 Known to the LD service (denominator) - please clarify the definition, as we are normally given more info (e.g. LD people receiving services in the year, plus any assessed/reviewed in year where no services provided, with Timing of assistance. Only those clients helped into work during the 1/4/07 corresponding RAP references) 31/3/08 period should be included in the measure. Those people known to the CASSR who have previously helped into work, who have been counted 27-Apr-08 Numerator - please clarify if the person has to have been in the equivalent SAS question in previous years, should not be included in helped into work during the period 1/4/07-31/3/08, or can the 07/08 measure. The exception is if a person was previously assisted we still include LD people known to us, who have been into work, but was then assisted once more into a different role during this helped into work previously who still remain in work (e.g. year they may be counted in the 07-08 SAS. This may be particularly they may have been helped into work in January 07, and applicable to local areas where there has been a change in Remploy still remain in employment as at 31st March, and as still employment during this year. known to us) The question appears to have changed from last year, The question does refer to neurological conditions in line with the guidance although this does not appear to have been recognised in that it is linked to in the SAS guidance. the various documents that highlight changes. The change is 25-Apr-08 the addition of “neurological”.This change is significant.We recognise that the term (Neurological) appears in both this and last year‟s guidance but request confirmation that the question only refers to neurological. Carers breaks - If a carer receives a break of 2 days a week = 104 or 52? Are LA's allowed to submit additional supporting information as an annex to 25-Apr-08 the main SAS document. 25-Apr-08 The provided responses are 1, in 07/08 or 2, in 08/09, 25-Apr-08 what if your council has chosen a longer time period than 08/09 or even no time period as yet? For these new questions do you just what to know number of referrals for just the vulnerable adult or do you want the 25-Apr-08 number to include perpetrators? The way in which breaks are calculated is as follows: a weekly break would be counted as 52 for the year. No. We will not accept additional supporting documentation to accompany the SAS submission. If you have additional supporting documentation that relates to the assessment of performance please raise this with the BRM 5.4GN159 relates to level 3 of the ESLG. If these levels have not been implemented or there is no plan to implement the level in 08-09 leave the drop down blank. We would like you to record the number of adults who are vulnerable who have been referred from sources 187 -190. This is not likely to include the perpetrator but if the perpetrator is themeselves a person who is vulnerable and they are referred in their own right as a person who is vulnerable then include them in the count. If not then do not include them in the count. Known to CASSR' is not solely those clients receiving services during the year. Local Authorities should also include those LD clients who have been assessed (or reviewd) during the year but then did not receive services whether through refusal of offered services, ineligibility or financial ( eg FACS critera) reasons. 1.2OP011 2.1CS058 3002OF 5.4GN159 7.1GN186 8.3GN250 The guidance I currently have The response requires an out turn figure in pounds for 8.3GN 252/3 and is http://www.csci.org.uk/professional/Docs/performance_ass about all relevant staff whether FT or PT. 8.3GN250/1 will be calculated essment_handbook_annex_4.doc automatically by CSCI staff. 25-Apr-08 Doesn‟t indicate whether FTE (WTE) or headcount should be used for these questions: Of those receiving new Telecare services since April 2006, please tell us what evidence you have of the outcomes 24-Apr-08 resulting from the Telecare services they have received. The wrong year has been listed and should this be from April 2007 not 2006? There is a column which shows 2007-08 plan as at May 2007. The pre-populated figures in here are wrong. These 24-Apr-08 2007-08 plans were provided in 2006. Can this be corrected? The question title should be April 2006. 2.1GN036 2.1OP033 The information currently being populated in the SAS relates to the 2007/08 Plan as captured in the 2006 SAS, rather then the revised 2007/08 Plan which was captured in the 2007 SAS. This issue will be corrected by a FIXIT sent to councils shortly. 2.1OP306 24-Apr-08 Have this question come back? 2007 = 2.1OP032 replaced, This question was omitted from the first version of the SAS guidance sent to councils but was re-inserted in the version of the guidance recently sent None of the above was in the Guidance to councils and made available on CSCI's website. This has unfortunately been hardcoded for Suffolk so will affect the SAS template for every council. We will develop a FIXIT file to populate the 2006-07 / 2007-08 Plan cells with correct data. Under consultation with the department of health it was decided to remove these questions from the 2008 SAS. The new version of the 2008 SAS guidance reflects the deletions and has been sent to all councils and is available on CSCI's internet. 4.4GN156 8.3GN256 Prepopulated data (“2006-7” and “2007-8 Plan”) is shown 24-Apr-08 for Suffolk instead of Wirral. Given that we cannot amend the SAS input form, can you please forward an amended SAS spreadsheet. Within the SAS guidance notes there is indication of some new questions around Area Based Grant - Social care 24-Apr-08 Workforce(Adults) - reference numbers 8.3GN256-259 However we cant locate them on the SAS spreadsheet that needs completing - can you advise Could you provide advice on the following query for the SAS The unit costs of the care provided are captured through PSSEX1 and can data items listed. be correlated to type of contracts. The PSSEX1 this will not capture the PCT directly funded care and so should not be included in the percentages. 9.4GN296 (residential/nursing) 9.4GN297(domiciliary) 9.4GN298(residential/nursing 9.2GN296 24-Apr-08 We have a number of contracts where we are the lead through the joint commissioning arrangements commissioner, however the direct care is funded by the PCT - should these clients be included in the above data items. 1.2OP009 1.3OP010 Automatic formatting of 2007/8 value is incorrect. Value of 22-Apr-08 78% is coloured yellow. Putting same value into 2008/9 plan correctly comes out as light green I have just been looking at the guidance regarding delayed discharges as circulated with the SAS. Am I correct to assume that the data in D41 is not yet banded in the SAS already distributed (and will not be) until after 11th July 2008 when data is agreed by the CSCI? 22-Apr-08 I guess I am asking is will the SAS be updated so the banding is shown after this date? CSCI are aware of this issue and will be correcting it by a fixit sent to councils in the next few weeks. PAF D41 has not currently been banded due to the uncertainlty around the accuracy of the information available. Please see the letter from the DH which accompanied the SAS spreadsheet. PAF D41 will be banded in final version of the SAS available to councils in August. 2.1OP032 This question was in the guidance but does not appear to be This question has been removed from the latest version of the guidance now available on CSCI's internet site. 22-Apr-08 in the template, is this correct ? Please can you tell us how we can print the SAS so that the number of characters entered in each cell is shown on the right-hand side, i.e. so that the page set-up is just one page wide? (Adults section) At meetings, senior managers need to know how many characters have been entered, and hence how much space there is left in each 22-Apr-08 cell. Currently this is not possible and twice as much paper is produced as is necessary as the second half of the file is printed with just the number on which cannot then be matched up very easily! This happens every year. Please can you run a fix so that the whole document is set to be just one page wide by 69 pages high? The template correctly reflects the guidance. We will look into this issue and correct it if possible in a fixit to be distributed to councils in the next few weeks. 3002OF 6.4LD168 8.3GN246 2006-07 Figure states 111 it should read 11. This cell is pre- The figure of 111 for 06/07 was provided by the council in the 2007 SAS populated so I am unable to change it and as such cannot now unfortunatelty be changed. 2007-08 Outturn cell is protected so am unable to input We have checked this on our version of the template and the cell is figure unlocked. Please send the template to the following address if this 22-Apr-08 continues to be a problem. 22-Apr-08 apa.mailbox@csci.gsi.gov.uk 8.3GN247 Should I be able to input a figure in the 30 Sept 07 box as I The figure for September 2007 has already been provided to the DHs Information centre as part of the SSDS001 return. The figure will be pre22-Apr-08 am unable to. populated in the SAS for it's return to the council in June. I have related the SAS guidance to the spreadsheet received of deletions, additions or revisions. Column C of the latter relates to the client group (OP, LD, MH etc)I have assumed that where the SAS reference states GN the question refers to all clients as opposed to OP – Older People, MH – Mental Health etc. However, for the three reference numbers being queried, the GN denotes all clients, but in column C of the 21-Apr-08 deletions‟ spreadsheet they relate to OP?Has there been an error in the numbering in the SAS guidance or is the deletions‟ spreadsheet incorrect?Would you also please confirm, in respect of any questions where the client group in column C (of the deletions‟ spreadsheet) isn't t he same as in the question number - what client group is required in the answer?Thank you The guidance says this response should be up to 800 21-Apr-08 characters but the SAS cell allows 1,000. Please let me know which is correct. The guidance says this response should be up to 1,000 21-Apr-08 characters but the SAS cell only allows 800. Please let me know which is correct. re Appendix 5 on page 151 of the SAS Guidance [NB Version on CSCI Professionals site stops at p150!!!] "The page contains an Excel attachment which maps 2007 SAS numbers with 2008 SAS numbers. Can I check with you if this is the correct mapping document as several of the question numbers given for 2008 in this spreadsheet do not seem to match with what is actually in the 2007-08 guidance. 21-Apr-08 For example, question 6.4GN177 in 2007 should have become, according to the way I'm reading the guidance, 6.2GN177 in 2008. However, 6.2GN177 does not exist in the 2008 guidance, while the same question appears under both 2007 and 2008 as 6.4GN177. Additionally, on the Excel spreadsheet, under Descriptor and User Group, the reference for this question is 6.2 and MH, but, again I cannot find this number in the guidance." Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention. You are correct in that question 2.1OP036 should fall under the "Performance measures for older people : Telecare" section. Also, questions 2.1GN037 and 2.6GN038 in the mapping spreadsheet need updating so that User Group column reads "GN" and not "OP". We will be updating the question mapping spreadsheet on CSCI's internet site shortly. 2.1GN036 4.5LD095 4.5LD096 Latest version of the Guidance states up to 1000 characters for this question. Is correct in the SAS template. Latest version of the Guidance states up to 800 characters for this question. Is correct in the SAS template. Mapping document and Guidance document have now been aligned so that question numbering agree with each other and are correct. 6.2GN177 8.3GN256 8.3GN256-259 These questions appear to be missing from 21-Apr-08 the SAS 8.3GN256-7 - Difference between 08-09 allocation and 0821-Apr-08 09 plan? These questions have been deleted from the SAS at the request of councils. Please refer to details in Annex 1 in the latest version of the guidance document. This question has now been deleted from the SAS at the request of councils. See "Annex 1 - Additions, deletions and amended questions updates to this document" in the latest version of the Guidance 8.3GN256 9.2GN284 In the 2007 SAS you asked for expenditure for other adult This is a combination of questions 9.2GN296 and 9.2GN296a from the services excluding Supporting People and a supplementary 2007 SAS. I would therefore include Supporting People funding in the question asking the same question but for Supporting figure entered. 21-Apr-08 People Funding. This year there is only one question relating to expenditure on other adult services. Should the figure given include or exclude Supporting People funding? The Guidance document / notes reference 9.2GN274-284 from the May 2007 SAS when completing these sections for 21-Apr-08 2008 on variances. (C. page 136 in the guidance)I think this is miss-quoted and should read 9.2GN286-299. I have a few minor points regarding question references in the final SAS Guidance Have checked both mapping sheet and guidance - question numbers 9.2GN271 - 9.2GN287 for 2008 do agree with each other in both documents. References for equivalent questions numbers in 2007 are also correct. Thanks for letting us know about these discrepancies in the SAS Guidance. As you can appreciate, it's a sizable document and obviously one or two minor errors have appeared in the final version. I'll pass your comments on to the document authors, so they're aware of them. 9.2GN292 4.5OP089 17-Apr-08 7.4GN178 I have a few minor points regarding question references in Thanks for letting us know about these discrepancies in the SAS Guidance. the final SAS Guidance. 17-Apr-08 PAFD37 - Page 99 quotes 7.4GN178 whilst page 104 quotes 7.4OP178. (GN in SAS) I have a few minor points regarding question references in the final SAS Guidance. PAFB11 - Page 127 quotes 9.2OP262 whilst page 140 17-Apr-08 quotes 9.2GN262 (GN in SAS) PAFB12 - Page 127 quotes 9.2OP263 whilst page 141 quotes 9.2GN263 (GN in SAS) PAFB17 - Page 127 quotes 9.2OP264 whilst page 142 quotes 9.2GN264 (GN in SAS) Thanks for letting us know about these discrepancies in the SAS Guidance. 8.3GN262 3002OF The find function - 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 deleted by accident. 16-Apr-08 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 intermediate care in terms of the following statement "Joint NHS/SSD funded services should be split 50:50 between services. We are not quite sure how this applies. We have a service in the day hospital wholely funded by the NHS and 15-Apr-08 then a Joint Team Service funded by NHS/SSD. How do we count the activity? Do we count the whole of the activity of the daycare service and just 50% of the joint Teams's activity. Please could you explain what should be counted. The requirement is only to include services funded by the adult social care department. What the guidance says is that if you cannot or you have no basis for knowing exactly what your constribution is into any joint funding with the NHS for these services then make the split on a 50:50 basis. The NHS funded day hospital provision cannot be included unless there is an element of adult social care funding as well. If there is a jointly funded team and you are able to be precise about the adult social care contribution 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. The figures for 116 -144 (apart from those which are greyed out) should only include those people who are recipients of a direct payment. If the recipient of the DP is also in receipt of other funding streams as part of the IB then they should be included in the DP count as they are receiving a DP. If they are are in the IB category but not receiving a DP as part of the IB funding stream then they cannot be included in the DP count. 1.2OP001 4.7GN116 Our council is a pilot site for Individual Budgets and therefore the vast majority of our clients using self directed support are allocated an Individual Budget rather than a Direct Payment. I am aware that under question 145 we have the opportunity to describe our progress in 14-Apr-08 implementing IBs, however what scope is there for us to include our Individual Budget figures in our response to 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 former, this is the same question as last year. Pls clarify. It should be for 2006-07 because we want to know if the figure was included in the count for 2006-07 or not. The item asks specifically: Did you include LD adults in NHS campus accomodation in what is question LD 102 in 2006-07 becasue we need to be sure that there was consistecny with the count. 1.3LD015 8-Apr-08 1.2OP009 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 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 ! All cases where a housing agency started work on an adaptation likely to 18-Mar-08 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. 2.5LD047 Should the following will be included in the D75 Practice Learning - Adults only: 1) Placement days of staff whose substantive post are in Children/families but have started placements within Adults services 2) Placement days of staff whose substantive post are in Adults but have started placements in Children/families services. 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 Information supplied for Outcome 3 within the new SAS Guidance document? 3002OF The PI is concerned with the contribution towards training new SWs of adult 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 training in or through the adult services part of the council then the placement days are to be counted - if they are assisted by a placement in a 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 it should be included in any parallel PI for children's servcies. 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. . 8.3GN246 18-Mar-08 There is no technical information for Outome 3 as there is no numeric/indicator questions. The issue with the appendices has been picked up with the new version of 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. 3002OF 17-Mar-08 We have received the guidance form for the Self Assessment Survey (SAS) for 2007/8 - thanks. Can you please confirm the date that the actual spreadsheet will be issued? The SAS spreadsheet should hopefully be with councils in the W/C 7th April. If there are any revisions to the timescale, councils will be informed. 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