Agenda item

At the last meeting, the Panel had requested a ‘deep dive’ into the performance of death and still birth registration appointments, following the decline in performance identified in the Quarter 1 performance indicators. The Director presented a report detailing the findings of the ‘deep dive’, along with an overview of the Registration service, including performance, recent changes and future developments.

The Registration and Coroner’s Services Manager (RCSM) provided an overview of the report including details of:

·         The current staffing arrangements, including reliance on peripatetic staff to cover for leave and peak times of demand.

·         The locations of Registration Offices in the County and that some were co-located with other services for the convenience of users and to ensure cost-effectiveness.

·         The data on availability of appointments was provided to the Council and also the General Register Office, the latter which oversees performance in terms of agreed Performance Indicators. This information was then analysed in different ways. Referring to Appendix 1, it was highlighted that whilst there was always an available appointment in the County, such appointments were not always taken up due to, for instance, an inability to travel to a particular office.

·         Stillbirths – the Panel was advised that most stillbirths occurred at one of the main hospitals. Due to this being such a distressing time for families, the Service took its lead from the bereavement midwife as to where and when a family was able to deal with the registration process. In light of this, the statutory timescales were not always met as the needs of the family took priority.

·         Death Registration – whilst the Council’s performance was still above national and regional levels, it was still below the target of 90% within 5 calendar days. The RCSM referred to various actions being implemented to address this issue, including the introduction of a Performance Champion who was reviewing best practice and working with GP’s and hospitals to seek to improve reporting times.

Members raised a number of questions and related issues as follows:

·         The Chairman asked why registration needed to be completed in person at an office rather than on line. The RCSM advised that the law stated that it needed to be carried out in this way. She highlighted that there were some changes happening with regard to some aspects of the Registration Service, for instance, the electronic record system was soon to become the legal record of marriages, following which marriage registers would no longer be required. Following discussion on the detailed monitoring sheet in Appendix 2, the RCSM confirmed that relatives who lived outside of Worcestershire could attend a register office local to them and that office would then transfer the details to the Worcestershire service. The CMR for Communities highlighted that many residents valued the personal reassurance and guidance that was provided when registering a death in person.

·         A Member asked for the procedure for registering a death to be explained and the RCSM gave a brief overview of the key stages.

·         The issue of sharing of data with other agencies was raised. The RCSM advised that there was a statutory requirement to share information with agencies such as Public Health and Council Tax Offices. In addition, legislation which came into force last year, allowed permission to be sought to share data, provided there was a legal reason to do so. The optional ‘Tell us Once’ Service, also allowed the Service to share data with a range of other agencies, provided permission was obtained from the family.

·         In cases when people found it difficult to travel to a Register Office, the question was asked whether there was a mobile registration service available. The RCSM explained that domiciliary visits were available in certain limited circumstances, such as for those who were housebound.

·         A Member asked what happened when a deceased person had no known family. The Panel was informed that in such cases, other persons could register the death, such as a person who was present at the death, a Care Home Manager or a Bereavement Officer. Where a deceased person had no family, the District Council had regulatory responsibility for public burials and dealing with a deceased persons estate.

·         In response to a question about the flexibility of the Service to religious or cultural needs, the RCSM advised that arrangements could be made for a Registrar to attend a mortuary at the start of the next working day. If a family wished to take a body out of the country for burial, the Coroner was required to undertake an investigation and issue a death certificate. Once the death was registered, funeral directors were then able to arrange for transportation out of the country.

The Chairman thanked the RCSM for a thorough response to the request for a ‘deep dive’, which had outlined the actions which had been taken to address the issue and additional actions being considered. The Panel would look forward to a resultant improved performance in their performance data.  The Chairman also commented that Members had benefitted from the general overview of the service which had proved to be very informative.