1 / 15

This presentation will:

NMDS-SC National Minimum Dataset-Social Care Feedback: Local Authority Pilot John Clegg Project Manager, NMDS-SC London. This presentation will:. Outline the benefits of NMDS-SC. Progress and results so far: London National Local Authority pilot. Engaging Local Authority’s – how on when.

benson
Download Presentation

This presentation will:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NMDS-SCNational Minimum Dataset-Social CareFeedback: Local Authority Pilot John CleggProject Manager, NMDS-SC London

  2. This presentation will: • Outline the benefits of NMDS-SC. • Progress and results so far: • London • National • Local Authority pilot. • Engaging Local Authority’s – how on when.

  3. Benefits of NMDS-SC • NMDS-SC provides the information to target resources / training to raise workforce standards. • Provides key national stakeholders with true market needs information. • Provides employers with the workforce development programmes they need, not those that someone else wants them to have.

  4. Progress • London • Phase 1 (Jun 06 – Dec 06) • Phase 2 (Jan 07 – April 07) • Approach – CSCI registered, communications plan. • Results. • Nationally • Outcomes – statistics beginning to assist. • Electronic data warehouse NMDS-SC Online. • SfC Agenda.

  5. The Pilot LA Project • 50 authorities invited to participate in August 2006 • 35 authorities committed to the project. • 18 authorities have currently submitted data. • 24 authorities have returned a questionnaire to identify lessons learned.

  6. Some outcomes… • Majority achieved senior management support. • Most located their projects in HR. • Restructuring an issue for some • Most concerned to minimise workload on ops managers • Some unhappy that it duplicated data given to CSCI. • Concerned about the voluntary nature of NMDS-SC • CSCI inspectors not encouraging participation. • 9 took issue to Unions – no issues raised - while 11 didn’t . • Most used Skills for Care marketing material.

  7. 20 wrote project plans – valued. Most intend to produce a Project Plan for the next phase. 3 had a Communication Plan Sample documents too complex - simpler versions to be developed. Range of communication methods employed. Approach

  8. Resources • 3 authorities found additional resources. • Most did it with existing resources but at the cost of other tasks. • 2 authorities identified additional costs - £185 and £4334. • 4 identified more resources for the next phase.

  9. Data Protection “The showstopper” • 6 wrote to staff asking them to opt in. • 5 wrote to staff asking them to opt out. • 1 asked staff to opt in to: • All data, all data except Ethnicity and disability, or no data. • 1 took the opt out approach but deleted sensitive items anyway. • 2 felt able to submit data without further action. • 1 submitted data but then wrote to staff informing them. • 2 felt able to submit without further action but removed sensitive data. • 2 are still waiting for final advice and 1 has yet to send out letters. •  ”To succeed, NMDS will need to be mandatory.”

  10. Determining the focus… • 8 focused on CSCI-registered establishments. • 4 picked a small team and one that would be keen to be involved. • 1 picked the Prevention Services Team - covered a range of roles. • 1 picked 2 social work teams, • 1 picked services to people with learning disabilities. • 3 covered the whole of adult services, • 1 the Children’s Services, • 2 the whole social care workforce. • Most selected willing volunteers and low hanging fruit.

  11. Completing the Questionnaires • 1 authority asked managers to complete. • 13 sent out pre-populated questionnaires to managers. • 7 completed all the data centrally. • 2 completed most data centrally asking only for either minimal information from managers or for their approval of accuracy. • Data checking and cleansing takes time - authorities advised to allow time for this.

  12. Data Quality & Gaps • 12 reported problems with qualification data. • 7 origins of staff. • 8 Destinations of leavers. • 3 Continuity of employment. • Authorities submitted what data they had. Some of the missing data has not been collected before - may require decisions by managers. Will depend on value and the costs of doing so.

  13. Next Steps • Evaluation of what worked and what didn’t - in particularly, how we are going to manage the gaps. • Many developing project plans, revising working groups and some applying for additional resources. • Need to set up sustainable systems to collect and maintain data. • Engagement with all LA’s from Autumn 2007.

  14. The benefits are many: • Streamlining the collection of robust data into one survey • Statistical ‘census’ point of reference • Quality data analysis, for the first time • Identify skills gaps regionally and nationally • To inform the development of appropriate learning strategies for the whole sector • Reduces cost by enabling better targeting of resource • Provide a factual basis for future needs forecasting (skills foresight) • Improved workforce development planning • Enables employers to get more for less

  15. Thoughts and comments? Contact for more information: John Clegg Project Manager NMDS-SC London Mobile: 07791 594718 Email: john.clegg@skillsforcare.org.uk

More Related