Continuing Health Care - Preparing to fight PCT's decision

greenflamingo_2

Hi All
On page 7 there is reference to Age Concern publishing a league table showing the PCT's in England on a League Table. We have our IRP meeting this Tuesday and I remember seeing the table and noting that our PCT was one of the bottom 5 to fund CHC for the elderly.

Unfortunately I have mislaid the actual table - if anyone could produce a link or a copy it would be extremely useful to have this to begin our case to the panel on Tuesday.

Many thanks

greenflamingo_2

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-06-20d.211755.h

Yes ours is at poll position 3 as the lowest funding PCT in England for CHC and the person providing the info for the table is our local MP !

Errata

That makes disturbing reading. It would be interesting to collate the figures by SHA.

monkeyspanner

greenflamingo wrote: »

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2008-06-20d.211755.h

Yes ours is at poll position 3 as the lowest funding PCT in England for CHC and the person providing the info for the table is our local MP !

There are more recent figures from Jan 2009 which Greg Mulholland requested in this link
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmhansrd/cm090120/text/90120w0029.htm#09012069008630

I think these figures relate to the first 2 quarters of 2008-9 (i.e. up to sept 08) although the question requested the first 3 quarters the 3rd was 'not available'.

It looks like the bottom 5 areas have all made substantial improvements from the table you have although all are at or below the national (England) average in the figures of 40 per 50000 of population.

The range per 50000 has closed from
Lincoln 6 per 50000
Torbay 247 per 50000
in the list you have

to
SE Essex 8.9 per 50000
Aston Leigh and Wigan 106 per 50000

Torbay have dropped from 247 to 58 per 50000, they must have taken CHC away from a lot of people about 500 I would estimate.

EdInvestor

I wonder how representative quarterly figures are, given that deaths probably play quite an important role in the statistics and might lead to quite a lot of volatility.

monkeyspanner

I would think that deaths might cause a seasonal variation with more occuring in the 3rd and 4th quarter of each financial year i.e. winter months. It would also be interesting to know if the figures include all awards in the quarter or only those which were still being paid at the end of each quarter.

It does seem that the new DST and CHC framework have taken some of the extreme regional variation and postcode lottery out of the system but there is still a large difference between the highest and lowest award ratio per 50000 of population of a factor of about x11.

Whilst this has happened the national average has only risen slightly. Can we assume therefore that there is some target involved here because if that is the case it is against the framework principle.

CHCscandal

w h a t d o t h e y k n o w . c o m

/request/continuing_health_care_expenditu

as a new member I am not allowed to post links but this site appleis for inof under FOI, there are some good links to continuing care.

the question asked in wewworkforyou is answered with a total amount for chc which may include children etc, the trick is to aks them to break it down to adults then different parameters as required ie by age, home category, care homes with nursing etc etc.

Errata

Whilst this has happened the national average has only risen slightly. Can we assume therefore that there is some target involved here because if that is the case it is against the framework principle

If the framework is guidance, rather than a set of instructions, then certainly my PCT will be working to its own target, as it and many other PCT's do with NICE guidance

greenflamingo_2

PCT rep did not turn up and meeting went ahead anyway as everyone else attended. My partner felt the meeting was quite constructive and the participants were sympathetic to dad's diseases and that PCT had made several errors in bumping him down on several domains from the Checklist. We now have to have yet another Review as apparently material produced after the review is not submissable. Basically if your relative does not tell you of his deterioration and development of new problems (dad tells everyone he is ok and nothing wrong with him), and the reviewing nurse does not look at the nursing home logs this is not viewed as "significant changes" and the the framework is not applied! So you cannot basically rely on the professionals visiting the patient and asking to see the logs (I find this totally bizarre) whilst carrying out a review. So his double incontinence and inguinal hernia are significant changes and should now begin the framework process all over again.

Apparently we now have to have input into his care needs and have to contact the assessor for another review.
I thought really it would be more cut and dried than this and that if you could produce written logs from the nursing home that your relative had these illnesses and had deteriorated and had developed further illnesses that was that basically. However the Chair insists that the correct process has to be observed so we are going along with it - I feel really though that it is like going back to square one. Apparently the Chair will submit a written report within 4/6 weeks.

Has anyone any experience of Care Plans - who is involved, what is required, tips etc.? Also similar experience of having to have another reivew after IRP and what happened afterwards?

I dont know whether to feel disappointed or encouraged - its a sort of no-mans land really but my partner is viewing it as a positive compared to the experiences of some other contributors (e.g. freenursingcare site).

Oh well onwards and upwards - a bit like snakes and ladders but not any fun!

greenflamingo_2

Interesting figures Monkeyspanner - sorted on number of persons per 50,000 in Q4 2007/8 and the latest set 2008/9 Bury PCT's performance has worsened from 6th worse offender to 4th worse offender. No wonder they are building so many NHS buildings in Bury Town Centre!