Engagement Plan
Hounslow engaged extensively with the local market. The engagement programme commenced with all registered CQC homecare providers in an initial MS Teams hosted session held on 27th April. This session was an introduction to the COC exercise and outlined the national guidance and wider context as to how the exercise would impact them in their capacity as homecare providers in the borough.
From May Peopletoo were commissioned to support engagement and provide an independence to the exercise, addressing a concern raised by providers in initial sessions on confidentiality of data and commercial sensitivity. Peopletoo were introduced through an email from the Older Persons Commissioner to each provider.
Peopletoo hosted further workshop events in June as more guidance was released and the ARCC tool updated. This gave providers an opportunity to go through the tool and how they should complete it. These workshops weren’t as well attended as previous events. This was not unique to the borough. The experience of both Peopletoo and the LA indicated a targeted, personalised 1-2-1 approach was more successful and so was adopted moving forward.
Working with authorities in NW London further MS Teams hosted engagement sessions were held in mid-August. These sessions were better attended and provided greater depth of feedback from providers.
Where submissions were lower than anticipated, follow up calls were made by Peopletoo to providers to encourage their participation. Contracted providers were further encouraged and supported to complete the exercise directly through the LA and contract meetings.
Peopletoo emailed all providers of home care at least 3 times. Similarly, all providers were called at least 3 times. Due to the size of the organisations both big and small, the financial duties didn’t always fall on the registered managers. Those who had attended earlier events weren’t necessarily the person who was best placed to complete the cost of care exercise within the organisation. Some smaller providers had the same staff in their back office and delivering care so were harder to engage. Larger organisations often took a centralised approach to submission and weren’t always the same people as those that had attended events.
Providers were offered 1-2-1 sessions with Peopletoo either by telephone or by MS Team meetings. This enabled providers who weren’t as comfortable engaging in a group to ask specific questions related to their business. One provider in particular noted concern about business sensitive information being shared or used later to inform negotiations as in open book exercises. Understanding that Peopletoo maintained confidentiality and anonymized the data provided to the LA, they did complete the exercise.
|
Engagement outcome |
No. of Domiciliary Care Providers |
|---|---|
|
Providers submitted post engagement |
18 |
|
Despite calls and emails provider didn’t submit |
14 |
|
Didn’t engage at all despite emails and phone calls |
4 |
|
Received calls, emails and 121 sessions but did not submit |
2 |
|
Reported that they didn’t have capacity to complete return |
1 |
This multi-prong approach led to a significant increase in submissions and a sample size which covered 46 % of the domiciliary care providers in scope. Whilst the number of providers only covered 46% of the providers available, these providers represented in excess of 80% of hours commissioned by the LA.
|
Category |
No. of Domiciliary Care Providers in Scope |
% of Domiciliary Care Providers in Scope |
|---|---|---|
|
In Scope |
39 |
- |
|
Submitted Returns |
18 |
46% |
|
Returns validated as suitable for use in COC exercise |
15 |
38% |
