Housing Adaptations: Options for Change and Improvement - An Analysis of Consultation Responses

7 the views of service users

Introduction

7.1 The review of consultations provided during the previous sections is largely weighted towards the views of organisations operating within the adaptations sector as apposed to service users - responses were received from just three individuals. This should be taken into account when assessing the implications of the findings from the consultation exercise.

7.2 The views of service users were sought through three consultation events in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Inverness during August 2012. These were attended by approximately 40 service users. This section summarises the feedback provided at these events which sought views on the main issues associated with the current system for delivering adaptations and the future organisation and funding of adaptations.

Views on Changes and Issues Identified

7.3 Service users at the regional consultation events also overwhelmingly agreed that changes are needed to the systems for delivering adaptations. They raised a number of issues, notably relating to:

• Communication and information;
• The assessment process; and
• The appropriateness of what is delivered.

7.4 With regards to communication and information, feedback included: making reference to the need for a single point of contact, clearer and more concise information for users about their entitlements, and where to get support, and the usefulness of having showrooms for adaptations so that people are able to see what is available.

7.5 A number of points were raised regarding the assessment process including: the need for greater emphasis on individual needs and what the individual wants rather than strict adherence to guidelines, the importance of muted colours and appropriate lighting for people on the autistic spectrum, and the need for greater transparency and better information regarding self-assessment.

7.6 With regards to the appropriateness of what is delivered, the main point made was the need to ensure that the adaptations are appropriate to the disabled person living in the property, not just disabled people more generally. In addition, reference was made to improving choice and designing adaptations that are easy to use.

7.7 Other views expressed by service users included the length of waiting times for adaptations, the need to plan ahead particularly to take account of the changing needs of children, and to ensure that disabled peoples’ needs are taken into account in the refurbishment programmes in social housing. Other points raised included the need for streamlining change to building standards, the pressures which changes to housing benefit rules would place on adaptations budgets, and the potential procurement savings which could arise from the integration of health and social care.

Views on Changes and Issues Identified

7.8 The service users were most in favour of the individual option for the delivery of housing adaptations. Generally, service users did not have a preference with regards to the management and funding of the system as long as the chosen approach provided increased choice and control as well as sufficient funding. A number of general points were also emphasised including that everyone should be entitled to the same service regardless of housing tenure, the need for consistency and clearly defined national structures and boundaries (including a suggested ‘National Care Service for Adaptations’).

7.9 The greatest support and most commentary was provided for the individual option. Key points made were that the maximum involvement of an individual in the choice and adaptations would speed up the process and provide the best results. Some service users, however, acknowledged that in some circumstances people may not be able to take the lead in planning their adaptations and that independent and easy to access advice and support would be extremely important. A number of views were provided regarding the nature of individual budgets including the need to take maintenance costs into account and the fact that the person’s needs may change and that new technology could become more appropriate. In addition, there is a need to guard against increasing bureaucracy with personal budgets.

7.10 With regards to the health and social care option, it was felt that health and social care bodies were still ‘finding their feet’ and there was not yet enough clarity on the integration process for them to assume control of housing adaptations. The point was also raised that the health sector should not pay for adaptations that are not medical and that there are concerns about the development of boundaries between the delivery of adaptations for adults and children. With regards to the local authority housing option, the point was made that currently, most people would look to their local authority (or landlord) if they needed adaptations.

7.11 An alternative model - a local third sector organisation operating the model linked to the model for respite care, Shared Care Scotland - was also suggested. However, in summary, the majority of service users agreed that changes were needed to the current system and that the individual option for the delivery of adaptations would be the most appropriate.