Agenda item

1.            Mr McKenzie introduced the report and presented a series of slides which set out the key elements of the plan and the unprecedented challenges facing Kent this winter, with the usual increase in respiratory illness being exacerbated by covid-19. The plan itself had been kept short deliberately, to make it as accessible as possible, but was supported by a number of more detailed plans.

a)    asked if the plans offered sufficient flexibility to accommodate the tier system, and if there was sufficient staff capacity to support the expected take-up of beds, Mr McKenzie advised that the plan was able to respond to tiers but need not be affected by them. The plan was supported by sophisticated modelling and analysis, which would be continually reviewed so the plan could be adjusted to take account of changes in capacity and demand;

2.            Mr Smith added that the plan had been prepared with input from the NHS and service providers and would be used by all of them.  He emphasised that Kent was facing not only its usual winter pressures on services and beds but the added pressure of the covid-19 pandemic and preparations to be in the frontline of transition arrangements as Britain finally left the European Union in January 2021. He advised that the social care winter plan was part of a wider business continuity approach supported by twice-weekly cross-Directorate meetings.  This and the partnership approach with the NHS and providers was vital in facing an unprecedented winter.   

b)    asked about designated homes for patients with covid-19, how many beds were available now and where these were across the county, Ms Maynard advised that the forecast for the number of beds which would be needed at peak demand was between 41 and 50, but 71 beds would be available from 30 November.  If more beds were needed, additional funding could be added to provide them.  The initial estimate of 100 beds had been made at a time when various scenarios were being explored;

c)    asked why the figures for the percentage of the infection control fund allocated to care homes varied between 75% and 80%, Ms Maynard advised that the County Council had discretion over 20% of the grant and had allocated it to care homes and community providers; the higher of the two figures included those community providers;

d)    asked about the allocation of winter funding, Mr McKenzie advised that the £6.1m allocated covered the usual expected increase in demand for services in winter and included £1.4m committed to existing schemes which were already in place from previous years as part of core service delivery;

e)    asked about engagement with the voluntary sector, to make sure providers could survive to support future service delivery, Ms Maynard advised that the voluntary sector was the bedrock of community services and the County Council worked very closely with them to ensure that its policy was responsive to their needs;

f)     asked if the community placement team was sufficiently funded and able to respond to out-of-hours requests, Mr McKenzie advised that the funding was sufficient but would need to be flexible in the way in which it was spent, to respond to changing needs, and could be added to if required; and

g)    concern was expressed that care home workers mixing with their families over the Christmas period may then take the virus back to the homes where they worked, and a question asked about how the impact of this could be mitigated.  Mr McKenzie advised that all sectors of the population needed to be mindful of risk and the importance of adhering to Government guidance.  He was not aware of any planned change to policy following the most recent changes in guidance, although the County Council would always be mindful of the possible future need for change. Mr Smith advised that the Council would be talking to providers and partners about the need to be careful.   

3.            It was RESOLVED that the information set out in the report and given in response to comments and questions be noted, with thanks.