Chamber and committees

We are talking about how to measure success; I have a question for Nick Price on that. You said that, due to the pandemic, the chief of the IJB has developed a way of working, with the Granite Care Consortium, that has actually been successful—we heard that feedback. What the GCC has been delivering has been called a care board model. Do you recognise that, and should we consider harnessing that model as we take forward the national care service bill?

I am interested in the language in the bill around training and the recruitment and retention of the workforce. We are starting to move away from the time-and-task model and are looking at real ways of helping to support retention and recruitment and valuing people by engaging in training. What do you think about the provision in the bill that

“The Scottish Ministers and care boards may ... provide training”

and about how training helps in relation to valuing our staff and maybe retaining them even longer and supporting the continuing recognition of the professionalism of care? A lot of the care that is provided is really complex, so I am interested to hear your thoughts about what is in the bill as far as the language around training goes.

A lot of this has been covered already, so I will be really brief.

One of the issues that is coming out is to do with how local government wants to be part of delivering care now that we are going to create the national care boards. For example, how do we manage that shift to make sure that we can show local authorities that this is about local delivery, with national guidance? It is not about taking control into ministerial offices; it is about the delivery of care at the local level, with national guidance that underpins what the care quality needs to look like.

On recruitment and retention, if the Government committed to supporting on-going, continuing professional learning to unburden providers with regard to the financial aspects of having to send people away to do online or face-to-face training, would you welcome that?

I have a wee final question, which might go to Nick. We heard last week that the integration joint board in Dumfries will work with the Granite Care Consortium to examine what you are doing in Aberdeen, which could then be mirrored. Really good work has taken place and you have highlighted local authorities and IJBs that offer good examples of collaborative working and ethical delivery of care; I would like to see that work go forward.

Should we take those bits of good work and build them into the co-design so that, when the care service is delivered, we are using really good examples of work that exists out there now? That is part of what we are hearing about the Granite Care Consortium, which is now linking with Dumfries and Galloway.

I have a wee final question. Nick, you said earlier that, when your chief officer put forward ideas, people were nervous about them. I know that it is difficult to accept and adopt change; some folk are total change agents, while others need a lot of coercion. Do we need to harness your chief officer’s approach, given that a lot of trust was required to deliver the change that was necessary for the Granite Care Consortium and that you are now leading the way? Indeed, I have heard that you are now working with Dumfries and Galloway Council with regard to the lessons that it can take from you on how to deliver things in the south-west of Scotland. I am interested in hearing about the change aspect.

Both Margaret McCarthy and Nick Price spoke about trust, and Jim Gatherum, from Notwen House care home, in Dumfries, said that we should focus on trust and relationship-centred care, which all relate to the previous questions about autonomy. Do the witnesses think we should ensure that the bill focuses on autonomy, trust and relationship building as ways in which the national care service should support people?

I know that we have already talked a little about those issues. Rachel, I have brought up on my iPad the paper that CCPS submitted to us, in which you made recommendations about amendments that you would like to see. That sort of evidence is fantastic, because we really want to hear about amendments that you think will be good for the bill and which will ensure that it delivers the national care service—or, at least, a way forward with co-design. Thank you for that—I found it really helpful.

I am interested to hear the panel’s views on commissioning and procurement, on what “ethical” means and on how we move forward with that. That question is for Rachel Cackett, first of all, and then for Julie Welsh from Scotland Excel.

Yes, thanks. The time-and-task model came up during the committee’s visit to Dumfries. Euan McLeod, who is from the Dumfries team, said that the team is working with the Granite Care Consortium and that part of what it hopes to do is move away from the time-and-task model. Will you tell us what that means and what we need to do better when we are planning the national care service to make care more deliverable?

In the last evidence session, we heard about ethical commissioning and procurement. The language around ethical commissioning is really important with regard to how we procure services. The bill refers to reserving the right

“to participate in procurement by type of organisation”.

I am interested to hear what your involvement has been in how services are commissioned. What do you want to see in the bill specifically to support an ethical commissioning and procurement framework?