Agenda item

Older People's Strategy Draft


The Board considered and commented on the draft Older People’s Strategy.


  • Comments had been given to Andy Kimber on the Strategy and some of these were typographical errors.
  • It was suggested that other Directorates should see the Strategy to give feedback. A cross reference of other strategies was going to be undertaken.
  • It was suggested that information on opportunities for older people should be included in the Strategy. At the end of paragraph 5 of the Executive Summary, an additional sentence should be added: ‘This will include promoting employment opportunities for older people, opportunities for education and training and a fulfilling lifestyle’.
  • It was suggested that the font size of the wording ‘Bracknell Forest Older People’s Partnership Board’ on the front of the document be bigger as the Strategy was a Partnership document.
  • ‘Adding Life to Years’ was the previous Older People’s Strategy from 2009. It was queried who the refreshed Strategy was aimed at and who would see it. When the content of the refreshed Strategy was agreed, an easy read version for the public would be considered. The Sensory Needs Team would consider the colours and fonts in the document.
  • The national context may be added in an annex to the Strategy as the points were relevant.
  • Some of the issues raised could possibly by dealt with by other partnerships, for example, feeling safe and police presence would be within the remit of the Community Safety Partnership, and employment opportunities would be within the remit of the Economic and Skills Development Partnership.
  • The Older People’s Partnership would feed into the Health and Wellbeing Board. The Older People’s Strategy would be considered by the Bracknell Forest Partnership Board and other relevant Partnerships would be informed of the Strategy.
  • It was suggested that the Strategy could include ‘this is what we did’ and this is what we aim to do’.
  • The Strategy did not include information regarding quality of care. The Chief Officer: Housing would provide information regarding housing which may include extra care schemes. It was queried whether information regarding personal and domiciliary care would be included but it was noted that this was present in safeguarding and governance information.
  • The format of the Strategy would be re-visited once the content had been agreed.
  • It was suggested that a list of relevant policies could be included such as the Dementia Strategy. There were various strategies which could be included but it was queried how these would be referenced. One suggestion was an extra column on the action plan assessment document for relevant strategies.
  • There would be two versions of the document: a more detailed one for agencies and a more ‘user friendly‘ version for the wider public which BFVA would put together.

(Action: Martin Gilman)

  • It was suggested that a statement be added to the Strategy to reflect the needs of older people at different ages, for example, 50 years was very different to 100 years in terms of individual needs; similar to the previous ‘Adding Life to Years’ Strategy.
  • People would be encouraged and supported to consider what was available in their environment to assist them in later years.
  • With a large cohort of older people there would be pressure on existing services and budgets. There was a need to be realistic regarding what could be achieved.
  • It was suggested that wellbeing and self-care could be promoted earlier, aiming at people in their 40s and 50s as people wanted different levels of support and independence in later years.
  • Prevention was about behaviour change. It was suggested that there should be outcome measures and monitoring of the quality and value of actions.
  • A ‘social return on investment’ model was used at Bracknell Forest Homes where discussions were held with people regarding their support plan and achievement was measured. Case studies were important to demonstrate a holistic approach.
  • Evidence would likely be needed for some future funding requests to show that services and schemes delivered, although it was sometimes difficult to capture evidence if there was not a set project.
  • In 8.1, p.23 of the Strategy, the word ‘illicit’ would be replaced.
  • Key priorities from the Strategy had been collated into the assessment action plan. It was suggested that there be an extra column for the initials of the Partnership involved, in the action plan.
  • If people were able to continue working, this would enable them to remain in their own homes for longer.
  • It was suggested that priorities in the action plan be cross referenced and linked where appropriate.
  • There was a need to be careful that services ‘wanted’ rather than ‘needed’ did not become a strategic priority.
  • There was discussion surrounding how to encourage people to remain part of the community after retirement. It was suggested that there be retirement planning for people in their 40s and 50s and mentoring, for example, to discuss the implications of retiring to a seaside area. The retirement age was moving and people may not need, want or be able to retire at 65 years anymore.
  • The aim was for the Strategy to be ready by the next meeting of the Older People’s Partnership on 20 March 2013.
  • Further comments on the Strategy should be sent to Andy Kimber, Mira Haynes and Martin Gilman by Friday 15 February.

(Action: All)