Ian Lightley (Chief Operating Officer, Livewell Southwest) presented the Social Workers Deep Dive report and discussed:

a)     Livewell Southwest had held delegated authority from Plymouth City Council since 2015 to undertake Care Act assessments, reviews and safeguarding enquiries, operating within the statutory framework of the Care Act;

b)    Social workers played a central role in determining eligibility for care and support, promoting independence, signposting to community resources, undertaking Mental Capacity Act assessments and leading safeguarding and best?interest decision?making;

c)     Social work at Livewell Southwest operated within a highly integrated model, with social workers embedded across a range of specialist teams rather than a single generic service, supported by overall organisational leadership and coordination;

d)    The workforce comprised 86 registered social workers and 63 social care practitioners, with the latter being skilled but non?registered practitioners, formerly known as community care workers;

e)     Occupational therapists also undertook Care Act activity but were excluded from this deep dive to maintain focus on the social work workforce;

f)      Workforce age?profile data showed a significant proportion of staff approaching retirement age, but retention levels within Livewell Southwest remained strong compared to comparator organisations;

g)     There was no nationally agreed or consistent benchmark for the “correct” number of cases per social worker, but experience suggested 20–30 cases was a reasonable level for longer?term teams, with lower caseloads in high?throughput services such as hospital discharge and intermediate care;

h)    Caseload expectations varied depending on complexity and throughput, with active management through supervision to ensure workloads remained reasonable and safe for individual practitioners;

i)      Productivity was best understood by considering both caseload size and volume of completed work, with 170 assessments completed across teams in January, although benchmarking across authorities remained difficult due to different systems and service models;

j)      Retention had been supported through organisational approaches adopted post?pandemic, including a “train, retain and reform” model, internal development routes and a strong Assessed and Supported Year in Employment (ASYE) programme;

k)     Recruitment was supported through local careers fairs, links with universities, the ASYE programme, and a dedicated workforce attraction and retention team, alongside structured career development opportunities;

l)      Sickness absence across social care was higher than desired, at approximately 8.6%, compared to an organisational average of just over 6%, partly driven by a small number of long?term absences in specific areas;

m)   High retention helped offset some of the impact of sickness absence by reducing turnover?related productivity loss, although further work was required to reduce sickness levels;

n)    Strength?based practice was being rolled out in response to the Care Quality Commission inspection, with a practice model developed, training approved and engagement with lived?experience groups underway;

o)    Work continued with Carers Trust on implementing the Triangle of Care model within adult social care, with Livewell Southwest piloting the approach and seeking accreditation, supporting a shared culture across health and social care teams;

p)    Further work on transitions pathways was underway, with a more detailed discussion planned for a future scrutiny meeting.

In response to questions, the Panel discussed:

q)    Sickness absence within the social work workforce, with officers advising that sickness was typically multifactorial and that further non?identifiable thematic information on sickness causes, including stress?related absence, would be shared with Members;

r)     Caseload expectations, with officers confirming that managers maintained regular dialogue with staff through supervision and practice education to adjust workloads based on complexity and individual capacity;

s)     Concerns relating to internationally recruited care workers, with officers clarifying that Plymouth was less reliant on international recruitment than many areas, particularly outside nursing homes, and that while changes to immigration rules created uncertainty, the local impact was less acute than elsewhere;

t)     The benefits of organising social workers within specialist, integrated teams, including closer alignment with health professionals, improved outcomes through shared working, and stronger professional identity for social workers;

u)    Risks associated with specialisation, including potential boundary issues between teams, and the importance of management oversight to prevent people moving unnecessarily between services;

v)     How the success of integrated models was understood and protected, with officers emphasising the role of staff feedback, avoidance of hospital admissions, and effective discharge outcomes as indicators of success;

w)   Apprenticeship routes into social work, including the Open University pathway, with officers advising that while numbers were limited due to financial and productivity impacts, the scheme provided high?quality internal progression and retention benefits;

x)    Wider apprenticeship and entry routes into health and care across Plymouth, including the Plymouth Care initiative and upcoming recruitment events;

y)     Future workforce risks linked to retirement profiles, with officers confirming that workforce planning was actively managed, supported by strong recruitment pipelines, partnerships with education providers, and previous success with “grow your own” campaigns.

Action: Officers to provide high?level, anonymised information on sickness absence themes within the social work workforce and circulate this to Members.

The Panel agreed:

1.     To note the deep?dive presentation on the adult social care social work workforce.