Search results

In 2014, the Health Service Executive (HSE) in Ireland published its Safeguarding National Policy and Procedures (HSE, 2014). Under this policy, all agencies providing services through the social care directorate must ensure a robust culture of safeguarding is in place. Concurrent to this has been a move in social policy, practice and research to include the voice of the service user, both in terms of planning and reviewing services. (e.g. HIQA, 2012; Flanagan, 2020) This article examines whether service users with intellectual disabilities want to be involved in safeguarding plans and, if so, how that can be supported. Using focus groups service users demonstrated their knowledge of safeguarding as a concept, how they felt about the issues raised, and, crucially what they felt they would like to see happen next in addressing a safeguarding incident or concern. The focus groups took place in a large organisation providing residential services, day services, independent living supports and clinical supports. Engaging service users in planning and responding to safeguarding concerns is a fundamental principle of human rights legislation, both nationally and internationally. This study aims to highlight that it is both possible and desirable to engage fully with service users using a range of simple communication tools. For this to be implemented as routine practice in services providing support for people with intellectual disabilities, authentic leadership is required. Services will need to devote time, human resources and will need champions to get on board with the necessary culture shift.

Qualitative research examined peoples’ “lived experiences” and knowledge of safeguarding. Focus groups were used with thematic analysis highlighting common themes throughout, as guided by Braun and Clarke (2006). There were two objectives: Objective 1: measuring participant’s understanding of the safeguarding process. Objective 2: compare the potential differences between safeguarding plans devised by the participants in the focus groups, versus plans devised by trained designated officers responsible for safeguarding within the service.

Four principal themes emerged – 1. participants understanding of safeguarding; 2. restorative justice; 3. consent; and 4. high levels of emotional intelligence and compassion. Participants demonstrated that they could and did want to be involved in safeguarding planning and showed little variation in the plans compared to those completed by trained staff.

The study was completed with a small sample size in a single service in one area. It may not represent the lived experiences and knowledge of safeguarding in other services and indeed other countries. The video may have led to some priming; for instance, the Gardai in the footage being called may have resulted in the participants stating that contacting Gardai should be part of the plan. After the video was shown, there was a heightened awareness of safeguarding. This may indicate that participants are aware of safeguarding but unsure of the terminology or how to discuss it out of context.

For this to be implemented as routine practice in services providing support for people with intellectual disabilities, authentic leadership is required. Services will need to devote time and human resources and will need champions in the safeguarding arena to get on board with the shift in culture required.

While there did not appear to be many barriers to listening to participants, to progress this as a standard practice a very real shift in culture will be needed. It is important for practitioners to ask: Is the vulnerable person aware that this concern has been raised? What is known of the vulnerable person’s wishes in relation to the concern? To truly engage with service users in safeguarding plans these questions need to be more than a “tick box” exercise. This process needs to be fully embedded into a culture that promotes a person-centred, rights-based, inclusive approach as a standard rather than a one-off project. Some structural changes will be needed regarding the time given to designated officers, and what resources they can access (such as speech and language therapy). However, the real difference will be made by services operating authentic leadership that champions engagement on this scale, to fully answer the question posed by the researchers at the beginning of this report, “Whose safeguarding is it anyway?”

There appears to be little evidence of service user engagement in terms of planning and processing safeguarding responses, either in research or anecdotally.

The purpose of this paper is to update the core data set of self-neglect safeguarding adult reviews (SARs) and accompanying thematic analysis. The initial data set was published in this journal in 2015 and has since been updated annually. The complete data set is available from the author. The second purpose is to reflect on the narratives about adult safeguarding and self-neglect by focusing on the stories that are told and untold in the reviews.

Further published reviews are added to the core data set, drawn from the national SAR library and the websites of Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs). Thematic analysis is updated using the domains used previously, direct work, the team around the person, organisational support and governance. SAR findings and recommendations are also critiqued using three further domains: knowledge production, explanation and aesthetics.

Familiar findings emerge from the thematic analysis and reinforce the evidence-base of good practice with individuals who self-neglect and for policies and procedures with which to support those practitioners working with such cases. SAR findings emphasise the knowledge domain, namely, what is actually found, rather than the explanatory domain that seeks to answer the question “why?” Findings and recommendations appear to assume that learning can be implemented within the existing architecture of services rather than challenging taken-for-granted assumptions about the context within which adult safeguarding is situated.

A national database of reviews completed by SABs has been established (www.nationalnetwork.org.uk), but this data set remains incomplete. Drawing together the findings from the reviews nonetheless reinforces what is known about the components of effective practice, and effective policy and organisational arrangements for practice. Although individual reviews might comment on good practice alongside shortfalls, there is little analysis that seeks to explain rather than just report findings.

Answering the question “why?” remains a significant challenge for SARs, where concerns about how agencies worked together prompted review but also where positive outcomes have been achieved. The findings confirm the relevance of the evidence-base for effective practice, but SARs are limited in their analysis of what enables and what obstructs the components of best practice. The challenge for SAR authors and for partners within SABs is to reflect on the stories that are told and those that remain untold or untellable. This is an exercise of power and of ethical and political decision-making.

The paper extends the thematic analysis of available reviews that focus on work with adults who self-neglect, further reinforcing the evidence base for practice. The paper analyses the degree to which SARs answer the question “why?” as opposed simply to answering the question “what?” It also explores the degree to which SARs appear to accept or challenge the context for adult safeguarding. The paper suggests that SABs and SAR authors should focus explicitly on what enables and what obstructs the realisation of best practice, and on the choices they make about the stories that are told.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a literature review on what is known about unpaid family carers who are at risk of or have experienced abuse from the people they provide care for and relevant policy/legal and practice responses for affected family carers.

A literature search was carried out to locate literature relating to unpaid family carers who are at risk of or have experienced abuse from the people they provide care for. This also incorporated grey literature, including policy guidance and law, to determine the existing knowledge base, gaps in practice and areas that might require further research.

The findings suggest that although carer harm is serious, it is under-researched. In addition, the unique needs of unpaid family carers who are at risk of or have experienced abuse, violence and harm from the people they provide care for are subsumed in safeguarding policy/law processes and practice under the auspices of the protection of “adults at risk” rather than the protection of “carers at risk”.

It is important that those who support unpaid family carers who are at risk of abuse and harm know about their unique safeguarding needs and concerns to offer appropriate support. It is also apparent that policy and law need to address the gap in provision relating to the unique safeguarding concerns involving the abuse of unpaid family carers by the people they provide care for. This paper is based on this literature review and not on other types of research.

The paper provides insights into what is known about the abuse of unpaid family carers by the people they provide care for, and the policy/legal and practice responses to affected unpaid family carers. It contributes to the body of knowledge on carer abuse and safeguarding carers from abuse and harm.

This qualitative study set within Northern Ireland aims to explore professional perspectives on the application of evidence-informed practice to the adult safeguarding threshold screening process.

Data was gathered from seven social workers in one health and social care trust area, who perform the designated adult protection role, through individual semi-structured interviews in one region of Northern Ireland. The interview schedule comprised of a series of questions examining the role of the designated adult protection officer and included three vignettes (Appendix). A thematic analysis was undertaken using NVIVO software.

This paper reports main findings under the themes of: the role of the designated adult protection officer, threshold decision-making, evidence-informed practice and service improvement. One of the main findings was that professionals viewed the current process as too bureaucratic, and there was a desire to engage in more preventive safeguarding in collaboration with service users. There was a need to promote awareness of evidence-informed practice as it applies to the threshold screening process. Furthermore, the study raised the question of the need to consider the application of models or methods of assessment to the threshold screening process.

This in-depth exploration of the role of designated adult protection officers in Northern Ireland provides a valuable insight into the complexity involved in managing adult safeguarding referrals and investigations. This study adds to the existing knowledge base, identifies potential service improvements and highlights the gap in evidence-based practice as it applies to the threshold screening process. Threshold screening of adult safeguarding referrals remains a subjective process and is open to interpretation and differences in professional judgement. The study highlights the need to consider the application of quality improvement methodology to the threshold screening assessment and the need to promote the exchange of safeguarding knowledge.

The purpose of this paper is to elaborate the significance of safeguards in digital ecosystems and their role in generating trust among participants. This paper argues that the right mix and number of safeguards are crucial for an ecosystem’s growth and success. It offers ecosystem orchestrators concrete guidelines for how to implement and monitor safeguards.

This research is based on both consulting experience and publicly available information on several digital ecosystems.

This research conceptualizes safeguards as precautionary mechanisms that mandate or promote desirable behavior in an effort to engender trust among ecosystem participants. Safeguards can take various forms, including passwords, escrow, user privacy controls, ratings and reviews and policies and contracts. Striking the right balance of safeguards – neither too few nor too many – is crucial for ecosystem orchestrators. This paper identifies the factors that determine the optimal mix of safeguards, including the power asymmetry between sellers and buyers, the sophistication of participants, the nature of transactions, the cost of negative outcomes and the cost-benefit tradeoff.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is one of the first to illuminate the relationship between safeguards and trust in the context of digital ecosystem. It is also one of the few attempts to provide managerial guidance for ecosystem designers trying to structure their platform for trust.

The purpose of this paper is to interrogate and develop the conceptualisation of discriminatory abuse in safeguarding adults policy and practice beyond the current interpersonal definition. The paper draws on Safeguarding Adults Reviews (SARs) that refer to discriminatory abuse or safeguarding practice with adults who have care and support needs and protected characteristics.

A search of the national network repository of SARs identified 27 published reviews for inclusion. The contents were thematically analysed to understand how discrimination was experienced in these cases. Fricker’s “Epistemic Injustice” theory was adopted as a conceptual framework, informing the analysis of findings.

Evidence from SARs provides a challenge to the interpersonal emphasis on language and behaviour in national policy. Although the reviews acknowledge that interpersonal abuse occurs, a close reading spotlights practitioner and institutional bias, and inattention to social, structural and contextual factors. The silence on these matters in policy provides a narrow frame for interpreting such abuse. This suggests significant potential for epistemic injustice and signals a need to acknowledge these social, structural and contextual factors in safeguarding practice.

Discriminatory abuse is an under-researched and under-utilised category of abuse in safeguarding adults practice. The paper adopts Fricker’s theory of “Epistemic Injustice” to highlight the silencing potential of current policy approaches to discriminatory abuse to suggest a more inclusive and structural framing for safeguarding practice with those targeted due to their protected characteristics.

The purpose of this paper is to consider the role of the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983 in safeguarding adults at risk of abuse and neglect. The author has undertaken a thematic review of Safeguarding Adults Reviews (SARs) commissioned in England and Adult Practice Reviews (APRs) commissioned in Wales where the MHA 1983 was a central aspect to the review.

Reviews were included based on specific determinants, following analysis of SARs, APRs and executive summaries. This should not affect the credibility of the research, as themes were identified in conjunction with analysis of literature regarding use of the MHA in the context of adult safeguarding. Consequently, this review has been underpinned by evidence-based research in the area of study.

The interaction between statutes, such as the MHA 1983 and Care Act 2014, signify challenges to professionals, with variable application of mental health legislation in practice.

Lack of a complete national repository for review reports means that it is likely that the data set analysis is incomplete. It was noted that limitations to this research include the fact that Safeguarding Adults Boards in England may not publish SAR reports or may choose to publish an executive summary or practice brief instead of the full SAR report, therefore limiting the scope of disseminating learning from SARs, as this is difficult to achieve where the full report has not been published. The author aimed to mitigate this by undertaking comprehensive searches of Local Authority and SAB websites, in addition to submitting Information requests to ensure that this research encompassed as many relevant review reports as possible.

This is an important and timely topic for debate, given that the UK Government is proposing reform of the MHA 1983. In addition, existing thematic reviews of SARS tend to be generalised, rather than specifically focused on the MHA.

This work analyzes, through social-environmental reports, whether banks with higher transparency in social-environmental policies better safeguard financial stability in Brazil.

The analysis is carried out through a panel database analysis of the 42 largest Brazilian banks, representing 98% of the Brazilian financial system. Seeking to avoid spurious results, we followed rigorous methodological standards. Hence, we conducted an empirical analysis using a dynamic panel data model, we used the difference generalized method of moments (D-GMM) and the system generalized method of moments (S-GMM).

The results show that the higher the transparency of social-environmental policies, the lower the chance of possible stress on the financial stability of Brazilian banks. In sum, this study builds evidence that disclosing risks related to policies about sustainability can enhance financial stability. It is essential to highlight that social-environmental transparency does not have as direct objective financial stability.

The manuscript submitted represents an original work that analyzes whether banks with higher transparency in social-environmental policies better safeguard financial stability. Some countries, such as Brazil, have their potential for sustainable policies spotlighted due to their green territory and diverse natural ecosystems. Besides having green potential, Brazil is a developing country with a well-developed financial system. These characteristics make Brazil one of the best laboratories for studying the relationship between transparency in social-environmental policies and financial stability.

The purpose of this paper is to consider what safeguarding responses to discriminatory abuse and hate crime might learn from existing research on restorative justice and to drive practice development based on available evidence.

This paper is based on a scoping review of literature using four academic databases and reference harvesting. This comprised a critical appraisal of 30 articles, which were thematically analysed to appreciate the benefits and challenges of restorative justice responses to hate crime and how this might inform safeguarding responses to discriminatory abuse and hate crime.

The analysis identifies four domains where learning can be drawn. These relate to theory on restorative justice; restorative justice practices; perspectives from lived experience of restorative justice and hate crime; and an appraisal of critiques about restorative justice.

This paper connects the emerging evidence on restorative criminal justice responses to hate crime to the “turn” towards strengths-based practices in adult safeguarding. Although this provides a fertile environment for embedding restorative practices, the authors argue certain precautions are required based on evidence from existing research on hate crime and restorative justice.

This paper aims to present a mixed methods study of child criminal exploitation (CCE), particularly in the form of “county lines”, in three local authorities in southeast England. The data is analysed using a framework constructed from two relevant contextual and relational theories to understand experiences of CCE and the safeguarding responses undertaken to protect young people from harm.

Data were drawn from a survey (n = 118); interviews (n = 5) and focus groups (n = 15) with professionals; interviews with parents (n = 4); and from secondary analysis of eight interviews with young people affected by criminal exploitation. The analytic framework was applied to the data to answer two research questions: what is the role and significance of young people’s interactions with peers, parents and professionals in their CCE trajectories; and how do professionals understand and address risks within contexts in which young people are exposed to CCE? The mixed methods data collected by the authors were coded and analysed using this framework.

Although professionals were aware of contexts and relational power dynamics, the situated and temporal nature of CCE remained overlooked within safeguarding systems. Professionals required more space, time and support to fully and flexibly engage with young people and their families to increase safety.

There is limited research available that critically examines safeguarding responses to CCE in diverse geographic and cultural contexts. This paper contributes a critical account of how professionals might create connections and opportunities for change with young people, identifying structural constraints within practice systems alongside emerging examples of effective practice.