Background:
This report sought agreement to consult about the future of Shalder House.
It was noted that the Council owned Shalder House and that it was currently used as a rehabilitation facility for people who had complex issues that primarily related to vulnerabilities in terms of complex social or housing needs rather than social care needs.
The report set out the reasons and the timetable for undertaking consultation and engagement, along with the three options for the future of the service, including the possible closure of the service. The outcome of this process would be reported to Cabinet on 20 December 2011.
During the discussion on this item it was noted that paragraph 4.4 of the report should be amended so that the text within the brackets reads: “e.g. as set out in paragraph 9.1 to 9.6”.
It was noted that an initial diversity impact assessment screening had been completed in terms of the impact of this decision. This was set out at Appendix 1 to the report. It was reported that the screening would be further informed by the consultation that would take place.
|
Decision number: |
Decision: |
|
145/2011 |
The Cabinet agreed that officers commence a consultation process with service users, staff and stakeholders in respect of the proposed closure of Shalder House and report the outcome to Cabinet on 20 December 2011. |
Reasons:
Officers consider that the proposals are desirable because of the reasons set out in the advice and analysis section of the report. Shalder House is a service that supports people who have complex and challenging social and housing needs. The building is not fit for purpose as a sheltered housing scheme and therefore the decommissioning of the service will enable innovative and more cost effective approaches to delivering support to individuals that may need low level support to receive a tailored service.
During the service’s last inspection by the Care Quality Commission, the service was considered to provide very good care however the fabric of the building was criticised.
Whilst the care is good, it is not cost effective to employ 11 members of staff to support a maximum of 11 service users at any one time. During a period of 52 weeks, 38 people benefited from the service, which indicates that the service operates at an average capacity of about 70%.
The building cannot be made fit for purpose without a substantial investment of capital.
Currently, up to eleven service users can benefit from a site that could accommodate approximately 30 units of accommodation or be redeveloped for other purposes that could benefit the whole local community.
The proposed alternative approach to supporting people into appropriate accommodation and reintegrating into the community can be delivered in a more person centred way by using units within sheltered housing across Medway.