Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence had been received from Councillor June Nelson. 

There were no declarations of interest in matters coming before this meeting. 

RESOLVED:  That the minutes of the meeting held on 16 September 2025 be agreed as a correct record.

RESOLVED:  That all items of business be considered in public.

The Chair welcomed those present to the meeting. Mr Gary Collier, the Council’s Health and Social Care Integration Manager, advised that this was the fourth and final witness sessions for the major review of Adult Social Care early intervention and prevention (EIP).  The Carers Support Services had been a critical part of the offer insofar as the contracts that had been put in place in relation to prevention. 

Ms Linda Andrew, Chief Executive of Carers Trust Hillingdon and Ealing (CTHE), advised that she had been in post for about nine weeks.  CTHE provided a single point of access for carers, with 70% of the Board, volunteers and trustees having lived experience.  The Team provided a highly specialised support service and built strong relationships to deliver seamless referrals and coordinated wrap around care.  A two tier assessment was undertaken to ensure streamlined access:

• Tier 1 was in relation to statutory requirements; and
• Tier 2 was in relation to anything triggered by Tier 1.

Ms Andrew advised that there were 6,156 adult carers, 1,343 young carers and 536 young adult carers (aged 18-25) in Hillingdon.  In 2024/25, 1,017 new carers and 345 young and young adult carers had been registered and £1,671,540 had been secured in carer related benefits, increasing the household income for carers and contributing to the local economy.  Over an eight year period, around £1.7m had been secured in grant funding through strong partnership working to meet carers’ needs.  It was noted that carers cafes were in place across the Borough and that further work was needed in relation to hard to reach carers, particularly in Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner.  Around 40 families from the traveller community were currently being supported – undertaking visits with them had helped to overcome these families’ mistrust of services. 

Members queried how the partners identified where they would undertake outreach work.  Consideration was given to the unmet need and it had been identified that a greater presence was needed in the north of the Borough.  Community groups from across Hillingdon approached the partners to hold sessions where they could talk about caring and the carers’ role and the toll it took.  It was noted that the Somaliland community had been particularly hard to reach as these residents did not tend to ask for help and did not recognise themselves as carers. 

The effectiveness of the services that were provided were measured through a range of things including key performance indicators (KPIs), the amount of money secured in grant funding, compliments and complaints and stakeholder feedback. 

The partnership had been experiencing challenges in relation to funding opportunities as an increasing number of organisations were competing for the same money and some eligibility requirements had changed (e.g., City Bridge Foundation).  Members queried how partners worked collaboratively to ensure that they did not miss out on funding opportunities.  Ms Andrew advised that discussions had already been undertaken between CTHE and HM regarding funding for 2028 to identify alignments, share information and source smaller pots of funding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

Mr Ian Kavanagh, the Council’s Head of Business Intelligence, advised that it had appeared that the Council had not previously had the highest levels of transparency with regard to performance.  Moving forward, the Committee would receive performance update reports every six months.

Ms Sandra Taylor, the Council’s Corporate Director of Adult Social Care and Health, noted that the information included in the report had been gathered from a range of sources including surveys, Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and the Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework.  Some of the data included had been from 2023/24 whilst other data was more recent.  The survey results could be a little tricky (new data was expected in December 2025) and the staff turnover had proved to be way below the London average (lower was better). 

Demand for social care services seemed to be relentless with increases in learning disability mental health services and older adults needing nursing dementia support.  Although the contracts were being stabilised and the number of older people being supported was flattening, the number of people being supported with complex mental health needs was significant.  Safeguarding referrals were also still very high but the number converting to Section 42 enquiries had been steady and reasonable, indicating that partners had been referring correctly.  Artificial Intelligence tools were being used to help manage demand and Power BI dashboards had been created to provide insights into the data. 

It was noted that learning disability (LD) mental health clients started using social care services from a young age and for the duration of their life which then proved quite costly.  There were currently around 5½k active services in adult social care being received by about 3½k individuals (which was quite stable).  There tended to be lower numbers receiving home care and higher numbers receiving direct payments whereby they were able to choose their own care (home care and reablement would always be the local authority’s first choice wherever possible).  Investigations were currently underway to identify the reason as to why there was such a high number of LD clients in the Borough compared to other authorities. 

Members were advised that after triage was undertaken, there were around 1,000 assessments completed each month (with a 28 day target).  Whilst most of these did not need to be provided with any adult social care services, they might be referred to third sector partners for additional support. 

Where services were needed, reablement was often the most appropriate intervention.  Ms Taylor noted that reablement was a very effective tool for cost avoidance and had been funded through the discharge grant work that had been undertaken with the NHS.  Reablement was classed as intermediate care and around 30% of referrals came from the community (e.g., GPs, self, referral, etc) so it was free to these individuals until ‘aim achieved’. 

Ms Taylor advised that she was the Senior Responsible Officer for the reactive care programme on the Hillingdon Health and Care Partners partnership which aimed to prevent hospital admission.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Consideration was given to the Cabinet Forward Plan.

RESOLVED:  That the Cabinet Forward Plan be noted.

Consideration was given to the Committee’s Work Programme. 

RESOLVED: That the Work Programme be noted