Agenda item

Agenda item

The Future of Caddington Hall Older Person's Home

 

To consider and comment on the proposals contained in the Executive report on the future of Caddington Hall Older Persons Home.

Minutes:

 

The Executive Member for Social Care and Housing introduced a report which outlined the proposal to close the Caddington Hall Older Person’s home and move residents to improved quality accommodation.

 

The Head of Managing the Accommodation Needs of Older People (MANOP) introduced a presentation and advised Members of the history of the seven care homes, including Caddington Hall which was managed by BUPA until 1st August 2014 when the contract ended.  The homes are now directly managed by Central Bedfordshire Council. The homes do not meet the modern standards required and are expensive to update and maintain.

 

Residents, their families and staff at Caddington Hall had been invited to 1:1 meetings held at the home to talk through the options available.  A full consultation had been published in February along with an abridged version which had been arranged at the request of families and residents, the results of which demonstrated support of the process and the recommendation to close the home. Assurance was provided that close monitoring during and after a resident’s move would be maintained. The Director of Social Care Health and Housing had asked for delegated authority to keep Cadddington Hall open for as long it was necessary based on residents needs.  Some residents had chosen to leave Caddington Hall before a decision had been reached, six of whom had accepted an offer to move to Dukeminster Court in Dunstable.

 

The Care Act 2014 clarified the Council’s duty to shape the market and ensure new providers would fulfil market demand. The Council’s long term vision would ensure residents received a better offer of care home and provide a balance of care homes across the Council’s area.

In light of the report and clarification sought, Members raised the following concerns:-

·         Whether care currently received by residents at Caddington Hall would be maintained at a new place of residence.  In response the Head of MANOP confirmed that this would be the case. 
Although Caddington Hall delivers residential care, nursing care would be provided if residents require it.  .

·         Concern that residents would need to change their GP if a move to a new home took them outside of their current catchment area. The Head of MANOP advised that officers had fully briefed GP’s and anyone transferring to a new GP practice would have their full medical details passed on.

·         The arrangements in place to transport residents to new accommodation. Members were advised that transportation would be dealt with on an individual basis according to their needs and monitored carefully.

·         Reassurance was sought that safeguarding of residents was paramount in the process of the proposed closure. The Head of MANOP advised that Social Workers would be monitoring residents to ensure they were placed in their choice of home and that there were sufficient spaces available to accommodate everyone.

·         The current staffing levels available for the remaining residents at Caddington Hall. The Director of Social Care Health and Housing advised that 40 staff, in full and part time positions, had remained at the home.  Staff that had left the home had not been replaced and those placed at risk would be advised by HR colleagues of redeployment and other opportunities in the Council.

 

RECOMMENDED

 

1.    A thorough report noted.

2.    The Committee was satisfied that the consultation had been properly carried out.

3.    The Committee applauded the drive to provide modern living standards for elderly residents who needed care.

4.    The Committee was satisfied that the concerns of residents of Caddington Hall were being considered and asked for assurance that moving residents was carried out with sensitivity.

5.    Closure of Caddington Hall to relocate residents to improved quality accommodation was seen as appropriate under the circumstances.

 

 

Supporting documents: