This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Contracts Update'.

Performance Management Indicators
The Provider will be expected update the Activity Data and narrative section of this framework, a template for reporting will be provided by North 
Lincolnshire Council.

Performance and outcome indicator information will be populated from the activity data, this in turn will be used in the production of a scorecard. 
The scorecard will be embedded into the contract monitoring document alongside the narrative.

It should be noted that throughout the Quality outcome Indicators document, the unit of measurement are as follows
• Service users – person who the provider is delivering services in accordance with the care and support plan
Outcome indicators
Performance indicators
Activity Data 
Produced 15/09/2017 V1
1
 

Outcome Indicators
ID
Measure
Target
Method of Measurement
Frequency
Consequence of breach
Out1
Effective  - Percentage 
Green
Positive indicator
Quarterly , at 

Discussion at contract monitoring 
of service users who 
100-90%
contract 
meeting
feel their quality of life 
Measured as a user view question at the point of 
monitoring 

Notice of Concern
is good
Amber
review
meetings

Action Plan 
90-75%

Remedial Notice
Numerator –   Numerator –  Number of service users 

Default Process
Red 
who reported at point of review say the feel their 
75%>
quality of life is good
Denominator – Number of service users reviews 
undertaken in the last 12 months
Out2
Responsive - 
Green
Positive indicator
Quarterly , at 

Discussion at contract monitoring 
Percentage of service 
100-90%
contract 
meeting
user who have control 
Measured as a user view question at the point of 
monitoring 

Notice of Concern
over their daily life
Amber
review
meetings

Action Plan 
90-75%

Remedial Notice
Numerator –  Number of service users who reported 

Default Process
Red 
at point of review say that the choice and control they 
75%>
have over the support the receive 
Denominator – Number of service users reviews 
undertaken in the last 12 months
Produced 15/09/2017 V1
2
 

ID
Measure
Target
Method of Measurement
Frequency
Consequence of breach
Out3
Caring -Percentage of 
Green
Positive indicator
Quarterly , at 

Discussion at contract monitoring 
service user who feel 
100-90%
contract 
meeting
they are treated with 
Measured as a user view question at the point of 
monitoring 

Notice of Concern
dignity and respect
Amber
review
meetings

Action Plan 
90-75%
Quarterly , at contract monitoring meetings

Remedial Notice
Numerator– Number of service users who reported 

Default Process
Red 
at point of review feel they are treated with dignity 
75%>
respected in the care that they receive.
Denominator – Number of service users reviews 
undertaken in the last 12 months
Out4
Safe - Percentage of 
Green
Positive indicator
Quarterly , at 

Discussion at contract monitoring 
service users’ who 
100-90%
contract 
meeting
report feeling safe
Measured as a user view question at the point of 
monitoring 

Notice of Concern
Amber
review
meetings

Action Plan 
90-75%

Remedial Notice
Numerator -  Number of service users who reported 

Default Process
Red 
at point of review feel safe and secure
75%>
Denominator – Number of service users reviews 
undertaken in the last 12 months
Out5
Well Led - Care 
Green = Good our 
As Published 
On publication of 

Discussion at contract monitoring 
providers achieve a 
outstanding
CQC inspection 
meeting
good or outstanding 
report

Notice of Concern
judgment from their 
Amber = Requires 

Action Plan 
CQC inspections 
Improvement

Remedial Notice

Default Process
Red = Inadequate
Produced 15/09/2017 V1
3
 

Performance Indicators
ID
Measure
Method of Measurement
Frequency
Outcomes
Quarterly Monitoring 

Effective
Percentage  of  service  users  that  regularly  access 
ACT 11 / ACT 1
Meetings 

Caring
activities in their community
PI1

Safe
Percentage  of  service  users  that  have  been  reviewed 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Effective
ACT 5 / ACT 1
PI2
in the last 12 months
Meetings 

Responsive
Percentage of service users reviews that have resulted 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Effective
ACT 6 / ACT 5
PI3
in a reduction in service requirements
Meetings 
Percentage of service users reviews that have resulted 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Effective
ACT 7 / ACT 5
PI4
in an increase in service requirements
Meetings 
Percentage of service users reviews that have stayed 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Effective
ACT 8 / ACT 5
PI5
the same
Meetings 
Percentage  of  calls  that  are  less  than  30  minutes  in 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Responsive
ACT 9 / ACT 3
PI6
length
Meetings 
Percentage  of  service  users  with  Positive  Behaviour 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Responsive
ACT 17 / ACT 1
PI7
Support plans
Meetings 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Responsive
Percentage of care packages started within timescale
PI8
Meetings 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Caring
Percentage of complaints regarding service users care
ACT 13 / ACT 12 
PI9
Meetings 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Safe
Percentage of cancellations / missed calls by provider
ACT 14 / ACT 3
PI10
Meetings 
Percentage of calls extended / additional calls in length 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Safe
ACT 16 / ACT 3
PI11
(unplanned)
Meetings 
Percentage  of  calls  cancelled  by  service  user  (less 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Safe
ACT 15 / ACT 3
PI12
than 48 hours’ notice)
Meetings 
Number  service  users  experienced  delayed  discharge 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Effective
Commissioner to Provide
DTOC
due to social care
Meetings 
Produced 15/09/2017 V1
4
 

Percentage  of  service  users  reviewed  in  reporting 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Well – Led
ACT 4 / ACT 1
SUR
period
Meetings 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Effective
Meetings 

Responsive
CQC rating
AS PUBLISHED

Caring

Safe
CQC

Well - Led
Service User Review Indicators
.
Percentage of service users that feel their involvement 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Effective
in the decisions around their care and support is good 
ACT 18 / ACT 4
Meetings 
REV 1  or better
Percentage of service users that say that the quality of 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Effective
ACT 19 / ACT 4
REV 2
life and support they receive is good or better
Meetings 
Percentage  of  service  users  that  say  that  the  choice 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Responsive
and control they have over the support they receive is 
ACT 20 / ACT 4
Meetings 
REV 3  good or better
Percentage  of  service  users  who  say  that  their  views 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Caring
ACT 21 / ACT 4
REV 4
were fully included in the support plans
Meetings 
Percentage of service user that feel they were treated 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Caring
ACT 22 / ACT 4
REV 5
with dignity respected in the care that they receive
Meetings 
Percentage  of  service  users  who  say  they  feel  safe 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Safe
ACT 23 / ACT 4
REV 6
and secure
Meetings 
Percentage  of  service  user  who  report  that  they  have 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Caring
ACT 24 / ACT 4
REV 7
as much social contact as they would like
Meetings 
Percentage of service users who have consistent care 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Safe
ACT 25 / ACT 4
REV 8
workers
Meetings 
Produced 15/09/2017 V1
5
 

Workforce 
and 
Management 
Oversight 
Indicators 
Percentage  of  care  staff  who  have 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Well Led
undertaken  safeguarding  training  within  the 
ACT 30 / ACT 35
Meetings 
MO 1
last year
Percentage  of  care  staff  who  have 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Well Led
undertaken  Mental  Capacity  Act  training 
ACT 31 / ACT 35
Meetings 
MO 2
within the last year
Percentage  of  care  staff  who  have 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Well Led
undertaken  DOLS  training  within  the  last 
ACT 32 / ACT 35
Meetings 
MO 3
year
Percentage  of  care  staff  who  have 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Well Led
ACT 34 / ACT 35
MO 4
undertaken PEG training within the last year
Meetings 
Percentage  of  care  staff  who  have 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Well Led
undertaken  medication  training  within  the 
ACT 33 / ACT 35
Meetings 
MO 5
last year
Percentage of workforce with current NMDS 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Well Led
MO 6
status
Meetings 
Percentage  of  care  workers  with  up  to  date 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Well Led
ACT 38 / ACT 35
MO 7
supervision
Meetings 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Well Led
Percentage of staff leaving within quarter
ACT 37 / ACT 35
MO 8
Meetings 
Percentage  of  new  staff  recruited  within 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Well Led
ACT 36 / ACT 35
MO 9
quarter
Meetings 
Percentage  of  up  to  date  policies  and 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Well Led
ACT 26 / ACT 27
MO 10
procedures
Meetings 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Well Led
Percentage of staff with DBS checks
ACT 28 / ACT 35
MO 11
Meetings 
All  staff  have  completed  mandatory  training 
Quarterly Monitoring 

Well Led
ACT 29 / ACT 35
MO 12
relevant to the role
Meetings 
Produced 15/09/2017 V1
6
 

 
Activity Data 
ID
Lots applicable
Measure
ACT 1
ALL
Number of service users
ACT 2
ALL
Number of new referrals in the reporting period
ACT 3
ALL
Number of care calls in reporting period 
ACT 4
ALL
Number of service users reviews undertaken in the reporting period
ACT 5
ALL
Number of service users reviews undertaken in the last 12 months
ACT 6
ALL
Number of service user reviews that have resulted in reduction in care
ACT 7
ALL
Number of service user reviews that have resulted in increase in care
ACT 8
ALL
Number of service user reviews who care plan has remained the same
ACT 9
ALL
Number of care calls in reporting period that are less than 30 mins
ACT 10
ALL
Number of service user care requests acknowledged in 2 working days
ACT 11
ALL
Number of service users who regularly access activities in the community
Produced 15/09/2017 V1
7
 

ACT 12
ALL
Number of complaints 
ACT 13
ALL
Number of complaints relating to service users care
ACT 14
ALL
Number of call cancellations / missed calls by provider
ACT 15
ALL
Number of call cancellations / missed calls by service user (less than 48 hours notice)
ACT 16
ALL
Number of calls extended / additional calls (unplanned)
ACT 17
ALL
Number of service users with a positive behaviour support plan
DTOC
ALL
DTOC number for providers area
CQC
ALL
CQC Rating
LOT 1 – Provision of Care by Geographical Lot – Additional Activity Data
LOT 1
Number of new care packages accepted  in reporting period 
LOT 1
Number of new care packages offered in reporting period 
LOT 1
Number of care packages ended in reporting period
LOT 1
Number of care packages not meeting timescale in reporting period
LOT 1
Number of care packages declined in reporting period
Produced 15/09/2017 V1
8
 

LOT 2 – Provision of Care through Service User Choice -  Additional Activity Data
LOT 2
Number of care packages offered in reporting period 
LOT 2
Number of care packages accepted in reporting period
LOT 2
Number of care packages ended in reporting period
LOT 3 -  The provision of care at Ashby Meadows Extra Care Scheme -  Additional Activity Data
LOT 3
Number of new care packages accepted  in reporting period 
LOT 3
Number of new care packages offered in reporting period 
LOT 3
Number of care packages ended in reporting period
LOT 3
Number of care packages not meeting timescale in reporting period
LOT 3
Number of care packages declined in reporting period
LOT 4 – Complex Physical / Neurological Conditions -  Additional Activity Data
LOT 4
Number of new care packages accepted  in reporting period 
LOT 4
Number of new care packages offered in reporting period 
LOT 4
Number of care packages ended in reporting period
Produced 15/09/2017 V1
9
 

LOT 4
Number of service user reviews that have resulted in reduction in care
LOT 5 -  Complex Learning Disability and / or Autistic Spectrum Disorder -  Additional Activity Data
LOT 5
Number of new care packages accepted  in reporting period 
LOT 5
Number of new care packages offered in reporting period 
LOT 5
Number of care packages ended in reporting period
LOT 5
Number of physical interventions during reporting period
LOT 5
Number of staff trained to undertake physical interventions
LOT 6 – People with Mental Health Conditions -  Additional Activity Data
LOT 6
Number of physical interventions during reporting period
LOT 6
Number of staff trained to undertake physical interventions
LOT 6
Number of service user reviews that have resulted in reduction in care
LOT 6
Number of new care packages accepted  in reporting period 
LOT 6
Number of new care packages offered in reporting period 
LOT 6
Number of care packages ended in reporting period
Produced 15/09/2017 V1
10
 

Lot 7 – Provision of Roving Nights -  Additional Activity Data
LOT 7
Number of new care packages accepted  in reporting period 
LOT 7
Number of new care packages offered in reporting period 
LOT 7
Number of care packages ended in reporting period
LOT 7
Number of care packages not meeting timescale in reporting period
LOT 7
Number of care packages declined in reporting period
Service User Review Activity Data
Number of service users who reported at point of review feel they have involvement in the decisions around their care 
ACT 18
ALL
and support is good or better
Number of service users who reported at point of review that the quality of life and support they receive is good or 
ACT 19
ALL
better
Number of service users who reported at point of review say that the choice and control they have over the support the 
ACT 20
ALL
receive 
ACT 21
ALL
Number of service users who reported at point of review that their views were fully included in the support plans
Number of service users who reported at point of review feel they are treated with dignity respected in the care that 
ACT 22
ALL
they receive
ACT 23
ALL
Number of service users who reported at point of review feel safe and secure
ACT 24
ALL
Number of service users at point of review reported that they have as much social contact as they would like 
ACT 25
ALL
Number of service users at point of review said that they have consistent care staff
Produced 15/09/2017 V1
11
 

Workforce and Management Oversight Activity Data
ACT 26
ALL
Number of policies that were up to date at the end of the reporting period
ACT 27
ALL
Total number of polices required
ACT 28
ALL
Number of staff with a DBS check at the end of the monitoring period
ACT 29
ALL
Percentage of staff force that have completed mandatory training
ACT 30
ALL
Total number of staff with up to date safeguarding training
ACT 31
ALL
Total number of staff that have received Mental Capacity Act Training
ACT 32
ALL
Total number of staff that have received DOLs Training
ACT 33
ALL
Total number of staff that have received Medication Training
ACT 34
ALL
Total number of staff that have received PEG Training
ACT 35
ALL
total number of staff at period end 
ACT 36
ALL
Total number of staff recruited in reporting period
ACT 37
ALL
Total number of staff resignations in reporting period
ACT 38
ALL
Total number of staff that have up to date supervision at the end of the period
Produced 15/09/2017 V1
12
 

ACT 39
ALL
Number of new care packages accepted  in reporting period 
ACT 40
ALL
Number of new care packages offered in reporting period 
ACT 41
ALL
Number of care packages ended in reporting period
Financial Data Validations
The provider is required to submit 4 weekly data with date periods that match the payment schedule. The data detailed below should be 
submitted in an excel format to the Commissioner within 14 days of the end of the period.
Excel Column Heading
Contents
ID
The Service Users Council  Reference Number
Surname
The Service Users Surname
Forename
The Service User Forename
DOB
The Service User Date of Birth (Format DD/MM/YYYY)
Lot
The framework Category Lot number
Hours Contract
The number of hours contracted within period
Hours Delivered
The number of hours delivered within period
Notes
A brief narrative of any difference between the contract hours and delivered hours
Contract Cost
The cost the provider believes is chargeable under the contract within period
This data will be used to validate the payments in accordance with the terms and conditions of this framework. Any variations between the 
provider data submission and the council’s data will be investigated with adjustments to the payments systems made accordingly.
The number and type of discrepancies will be recorded for consideration within the quarterly performance reviews.
Produced 15/09/2017 V1
13