Item 14 - Category One Responders
North Lanarkshire Council · 22 March 2023
Back to Health and Social Care Integration Joint Board — 22 March 2023 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
1 REPORT Item No: 14 SUBJECT: IJBs Category 1 Responders in Civil Contingencies Act 2004 TO: Integration Joint Board Lead Officer for Report: Ross McGuffie, Chief Officer Author(s) of Report Ross McGuffie, Chief Officer DATE: 22nd March 2023 1. PURPOSE OF REPORT 1.1 This paper is coming to the Integrated Joint Board: For approval For endorsement To note 2. ROUTE TO THE INTEGRATION JOINT BOARD 2.1 This paper has been: Prepared Reviewed Endorsed By the Senior Leadership Team. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS 3.1 The IJB is asked to: 1. Note the progress made in confirming identified resilience leads; 2. Note that local resilience plans will be updated once further guidance is received. 4. VARIATIONS TO DIRECTIONS 5. BACKGROUND/SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES 5.1 Background 5.1.1 The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 was established with the aim of minimising disruption in the event of an emergency and to ensure that UK as a whole is better prepared to deal with a range of emergency situations. 5.1.2 Part 1 of the Act provides a focus on local arrangements for civil protection, establishing the statutory framework of roles and responsibilities for local responders. Yes No N/A
Page 2
2 5.1.3 Part 2 of the Act focuses on emergency powers and establishes a framework for the use of special legislative measures that may be required to deal with exceptionally serious emergencies. 5.1.4 On 24th September 2020, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport wrote to confirm the intention of the Scottish Government to pass legislation that will include Integration Joint Boards as Category 1 Responders under Schedule 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act, 2004. 5.1.5 The North Lanarkshire IJB responded to the consultation, noting the positive local relationships and the importance of IJBs and HSCPs being central to the resilience response in local partnerships. 5.1.6 On 15th January 2021, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Sport wrote to confirm the intention to include IJBs as Category 1 Responders on conclusion of the consultation. 5.2 Progress Update 5.2.1 The Chief Officer of the IJB has been a long-standing member of the Local Resilience Partnership (LRP) and this has continued since the changes to the Act were confirmed. In addition, the Chief Officer now attends the West of Scotland Regional Resilience Partnership (WosRRP). 5.2.2 Through the WoSRRP, a short-term working group was convened with IJB Chief Officers and West of Scotland leads to gain assurance around the IJBs’ preparedness and integration into the wider resilience community following their categorisation as Category One organisations in 2021. 5.2.3 Through this process it was agreed to conduct a survey with all West of Scotland IJB’s and Local Resilience Partnerships to gain assurance that the IJBs were now fully embedded within the local resilience structures, in line with the expectations set out in the Act. 5.2.4 Within the Lanarkshire Resilience Partnership, a collaborative process was undertaken to complete the survey in conjunction with the two Councils, NHS Lanarkshire and the two IJBs. 5.2.5 The North Lanarkshire IJB response is included in Appendix 1. 5.2.6 The WoSRRP paper summarising progress is included in Appendix 2. 5.2.7 As set out in the return in appendix 1, the North Lanarkshire IJB/HSCP is well embedded in the Local Resilience Partnership structures, at both the strategic and operational levels. The IJB/HSCP has active Business Continuity Plans; is tied into the multi-agency emergency plans and has played a full and active role in a number of planning exercises. 5.2.8 WoSRRP intend to undertake a follow up survey later in 2023 to track progress. 6. CONCLUSIONS 6.1 The North IJB welcomed the proposed change to make IJBs formal Category 1 Responders, whilst noting the positive local arrangements already in place that have seen the IJB fully embedded in the local resilience partnership processes for some time.
Page 3
3 6.2 The attached survey responses provide further assurance that the IJB/HSCP is meeting the requirements set out in the Act, with a further review to be undertaken later in 2023. 7. IMPLICATIONS 7.1 NATIONAL OUTCOMES This relates to all nine national outcomes. 7.2 ASSOCIATED MEASURE(S) 7.3 FINANCIAL This paper has been reviewed by Finance: Yes No N/A 7.4 PEOPLE 7.4.1 The IJB remains committed to collaborative working with local partners. 7.5 INEQUALITIES EQIA Completed: Yes No N/A 7.6 CARBON MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS Yes No N/A 8. BACKGROUND PAPERS None. 9. APPENDICES None. ............................................................................. CHIEF OFFICER (or Depute) Members seeking further information about any aspect of this report, please contact Ross McGuffie on telephone number 01698 752 591.
Page 4
4 Appendix 1 WoSRRP Integration Joint Boards Category 1 Responder Questionnaire This questionnaire seeks to look at operating practice following Integration Joint Boards gaining Category 1 responder status in April 2021. Its seeks to establish how each IJB is meeting the duty and establish any good practice or areas for improvement in the partnership. This information is intended to reflect on implementation, provide assurance locally and be a basis for further improvement. Please complete this questionnaire in conjunction with your local resilience partnership. Required 1.Name of the Integration Joint Board Responding North Lanarkshire IJB. Given the close working arrangements in place in Lanarkshire, we have collaborated with our partners in South Lanarkshire in the development of our response. 2.Since the Integrated Boards became Category 1 responders in April 2021, how have they been represented within the LRP, at a strategic and tactical/operational level? The Chief Officer and designated senior officers are core members of the LRP. Similarly, the Chief Officer is a core member of the individual respective ‘Command Structures’ in NHS Lanarkshire and North Lanarkshire Council. Throughout the pandemic response, the Chief Officer held weekly meetings with the IJB Chair and Vice Chair and every IJB meeting included a resilience update to ensure the IJB was kept informed at all stages. 3.Does the IJB have resilience related risks reflected in its risk register and are these consistent across the LRP? Yes 4.Does the HSCP have up to date business continuity plans and when were these last reviewed? Yes. Reviewed on an ongoing basis and put into practice over the last few years as part of the combined response to Covid and the attendant elements to be managed therein. BCP reviews have been undertaken by all partners throughout the pandemic response to ensure all learning is identified. 5.Are the roles and responsibilities of the IJB/HSCP fully embedded within the LRP multi-agency emergency plans, and how have you described these? Yes. The role the H&SCPs have in providing community health and social care support to emerging issues forms a core part of the multi-agency plans. The roles are described in the respective elements as well as their being part of the initial escalation of the ‘command structure’ arrangements as required. 6.How does the IJB/HSCP take part in assessing risk, writing plans, delivering exercises, debriefs and learning lessons with the resilience partnership?
Page 5
5 The H&SCP has a risk register that is shared with both the Council and NHS Lanarkshire and, in turn, resilience/BCP linked risks identified and shared therein. There is also a series of linked BCP planning review sessions, e.g. most recently Blackstart re loss of power and the two H&SCPs have contributed singularly and collectively to shared exercises. 7.During a major incident and subsequent multi-agency response, how will the IJB/HSCP be alerted and what role will they take? Both IJB/H&SCPs are core members of the respective command structures and will be asked to participate as same established. There is also a 24/7 on call system that means the respective officers can be called to participate at all hours. The role the IJB/H&SCP will take will be dependent on the issue in question. For example, during the Wannacry Cyber-attack, the H&SCPs took a lead role in ensuring all general practice and other independent practitioners were protected as far as possible and also a supporting role in so far as they were part of the overall decision making structure that sought to identify where best to place resources to mitigate the impact of the event. As described earlier, the H&SCPs have taken a lead role in the response to Covid, with a series of lead roles across specific groups and particular responses, e.g. establishment of Community Covid Assessment Centres; creation of PPE hubs; development of Care Home and Care at Home Assurance structures; and managing the Covid and associated vaccines programme on behalf of the LRP. 8.Given the IJB/HSCP role in delivering health and social care services, how has the LRP linked in with the IJB/HSCP to develop local Care for People arrangements? (e.g., coordinating psychosocial support, resourcing emergency assistance centres, etc) Both H&SCPs are core members of the LRP and key players in the ‘Care for People’ arrangements described above. This ranges from direct provision of services, supporting rest centres, staffing MIST teams and so on. The HSCPs also have strong links with third sector organisations that have provided vital supports as part of the care for people arrangements throughout the pandemic response. 9.Do HSCP staff fully participate in LRP training? (please provide practical examples) Yes. As described above, the series of Blackstart training exercises is the most recent of these, notwithstanding the lived experience of the last two years. 10. As the newest member of the Category 1 group of agencies, how can the IJB/HSCP better support the LRP and are there any clear gaps that need to be addressed? In Lanarkshire, even before the change in the legislation, both H&SCPs were already core members of the Lanarkshire LRP and associated command structures. As such, there are no ‘clear gaps’ that we are aware of. 11.Since the introduction of IJBs as Category 1 responders, have you had to enact your resilience plans and what learning was identified (beyond Covid-19)?
Page 6
6 There have been a few occasions where LRP arrangements have been utilised, these include the joint response to the arrival of Supported Asylum Seekers and Ukrainians and the need to mobilise services accordingly. 12.Have you identified any specific actions to progress as a consequence of completing this self-assessment? No
Page 7
7 Appendix 2: WoSRRP Report Date: 04/10/22 Agenda Item No: 7 Integration Joint Boards; Synopsis of Short terms Working Group Survey Purpose: FOR NOTING Background At the meeting of the West of Scotland RRP Strategic Group held on 31 March 2022, a short-term working group, comprising of IJB Chief Officers and others, was commissioned to conduct a survey of the partnership’s constituent IJB/HSCPs. Their task was to apprise the partnership of their resilience preparedness and integration into the wider resilience community following their categorisation as a Category One organisation in 2021. This report is a synopsis of that survey, which was conducted by means of a questionnaire sent to each of the partnership’s thirteen IJB Chief Officers. Eleven responses were received. The questionnaire results are available in the RRP archive on Resilience Direct, where the full responses can be viewed. Question 1: ‘Since the Integration Joint Boards became Category 1 responders in April 2021, how have they been represented within the LRP, at a strategic and tactical/operational level?’ There is evidence that all IJBs are represented at all three levels of command. Some involve the direct involvement of their Chief Officer; others involve officials with delegated authority. At a strategic level, representation is often made on a rotational basis, with Chief Officers representing colleagues, pro tem. Question 2: ‘Does the IJB have resilience related risks reflected in its risk register and are these consistent across the LRP’ Half of the respondents confirmed that resilience specific risks were included in their risk register, with some articulating use of the Risk Preparedness Assessment process to inform their activities. Others outlined that, although resilience risks were not specified per se, they were inherent in other risks detailed in their registers. One respondent commented that risk and activity was informed by outputs from the LRP, but there were no identified shared risks, so the work was not fully integrated yet. Question 3: ‘Does the HSCP have up to date business continuity plans and when were these last reviewed?’
Page 8
8 All respondents confirmed they had current business continuity plans, however, there was a variance in the review timescales for each, ranging from six to twelve months. It was noted that several of the respondents had not reviewed their plans according to these timescales due to the onset of the Covid 19 pandemic. This has, however, been recognised and work is underway to address the issue. Question 4: ‘Are the roles and responsibilities of the IJB/HSCP fully embedded within the LRP multi-agency emergency plans, and how have you described these?’ Eight of the respondents confirmed that IJB/HSCPs are fully embedded into their plans, primarily through the role of the HSCPs as the delivery arm of the IJBs. These have formed part of their plans for some time, primarily under the ‘Care for People’ sections. One respondent highlighted that their IJB/HSCP remains at the periphery of the LRP, with no involvement in planning outwith its own operational area. Question 5: ‘How does the IJB/HSCP take part in assessing risk, writing plans, delivering exercises, debriefs and learning lessons with the resilience partnership?’ Ten of the respondents highlighted a series of activities which demonstrated cooperative working with partners. This included participation in, and development of, exercises and simulations; membership of Contingency Planning Liaison Groups (CPLGs); inclusion in BCP reviews involving shared risk registers amongst partners and regular invitations to HSCP members to attend training and exercising opportunities within the LRPs. However, one respondent commented that, although there was representation at LRP meetings and an opportunity was afforded to contribute at this forum, there were no specific activities as noted. Internal debriefs are carried out, but no participation through the partnership is evident. Question 7: ‘During a major incident and subsequent multi-agency response, how will the IJB/HSCP be alerted and what role will they take?’ This question elicited a variance in the mechanisms of major incident response notifications. Several respondents articulated a clear understanding of tried and tested processes, typically routed through their Chief Executives, civil contingencies or other ‘on-call’ resources. Others cited their ‘care for people’ leads as the conduit through which their services would be engaged. Evidence was provided that demonstrated the role of the HSCP can be more than the traditional ‘care for people’ activities, citing the example of an HSCP being involved in the response to a significant cyber-attack. The HSCP’s lead role in ensuring all general practice and other independent practitioners were protected as far as possible, in addition to a supporting role that sought to identify where best to place resources to mitigate the impact of the event, showed the value of being integrated into the wider resilience community. This allowed agencies the opportunity to add value outwith traditional operational silos.
Page 9
9 Question 8: ‘Given the IJB/HSCP role in delivering health and social care services, how has the LRP linked in with the IJB/HSCP to develop local Care for People arrangements?’ All respondents highlighted established and well-developed local processes to address this question. For most, it involved their ‘Care for People’ plans, either as a standalone or as part of wider multi-agency response plans. To compliment this, specific roles have been identified within the HSCPs to support and co-ordinate activities, i.e., BCP Co-ordinators. Operationally, contact lists and directories have been refined and made available to key personnel to improve the call-out process and ease the establishment of rest centres etc. Question 9: ‘Do HSCP staff fully participate in LRP training?’ All respondents commented that HSCP personnel are included within the training and exercising programme of their respective LRPs. Although specific metrics were not included, the onset of the pandemic is likely to have impacted in this area, with room to improve take up rates in the future. That said, training is ongoing and HSCPs recognise the importance of their staff taking part in multi-agency training and exercising. Question 10: ‘As the newest member of the Category 1 group of agencies, how can the IJB/HSCP better support the LRP and are there any clear gaps that need to be addressed?’ Most respondents were confident that well established relationships, fostered prior to the categorisation of IJBs, were working well and provide the necessary conduits between the respective organisations. There are numerous pieces of work ongoing at present to develop these, and partners are critically examining current processes to identify areas for improvement. Greater involvement in the planning process is one such area in addition to work underway to define the various incident types and the specific roles the HSCP/IJB could perform. Some Chief Officers are considering a temporary increase in resourcing to assist with this work. Question 11: ‘Since the introduction of IJBs as Category 1 responders, have you had to enact your resilience plans and what learning was identified (beyond Covid-19)?’ Half of the respondents have enacted their resilience plans to meet a variety of challenges including the pandemic response, building collapses and asylum seeker management. As with all operational activities, learning opportunities were evinced, including the need for MTPAS SIMs for HSCP personnel to allow effective
Page 10
10 communications during emergencies, the requirement to develop protocols for elected representatives to visit the locations involved in responding to emergencies and the need to improve communication flows between those responding. Question 12: ‘Have you identified any specific actions to progress as a consequence of completing this self-assessment?’ Three of the respondents have identified specific actions in respect of this question. These include conducting a bench marking exercise across Scotland to share and understand best practice, greater use of the Risk Preparedness process to identify specific risks for the HSCP and comparing this with peers to ensure consistency of approach and the review of the HSCP ‘Care for People’ plan in addition to a greater involvement in the training and exercising opportunities within the LRP. Conclusion & Recommendation It is evident that the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic had significant impact on much of the day-to-day resilience work of IJB/HSCPs – particularly in the fields of training and exercising, and this has resulted in some respondents being in a less developed position than would otherwise be the case. One respondent highlighted several areas where they could be better integrated into their resilience partnership. That said, broadly, there is evidence that HSCPs are well engaged with their respective local partnerships and see the value in cooperative working. Given that the most significant challenges of the last two years have centred on health-related matters, it is perhaps unsurprising this is the case. It is vital this continues throughout the entire panoply of resilience matters, going forward. Members are invited to note the contents of this report. It is recommended that a similar exercise is conducted in twelve months’ time to evaluate progress and ensure the appropriate support is being provided.