Search results

The paper reports on the findings of a survey of 115 (76 per cent) of English local authorities in 2016 which compared progress on the implementation of the Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP) approach in local authorities through their Adult Social Care departments and in relation to their area Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs) and partner organisations. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the survey in relation to personalised social care and its impact on organisations, their staff and service users, and conclude with wider implications and recommendations for further work.

A series of guided interviews were conducted with safeguarding leads from a sample comprising of 115 (76 per cent) of English local authorities during May and June 2016. The sample was randomly picked and balanced to give a fair representation of the different types of councils. The interviews were conducted by a team of five people. All interviewers had in-depth experience of adult safeguarding and were currently practicing independent chairs of SABs. The interviewers followed a prepared schedule consisting of a mixture of open and closed questions. All interviews were held over the phone and averaged one-hour duration.

The results pointed to the impression that the majority of local authorities had completed the first step of introducing MSP, i.e. they had trained their workers and modified their systems. Most local authorities were moving into the next phase of embedding user-focussed work into their practice and culture, and were at various points along that journey. However, most had still to engage partner organisations beyond a mere acceptance of MSP as “a good thing”.

The research has wide ranging implications for organisations and their workers in the field of adult safeguarding based on its findings. Its limitations are that only organisational leaders and managers were interviewed, although reference is extensively made to initiatives that engage service users. The authors acknowledged the possible bias of interviewees when judging the performance of their own service and attempted to moderate their views in the final report.

The report references many practical implications to improve the practice of adult safeguarding in an attempt to make it more person-centred. Examples of good practice are given and recommendations are made to organisations.

It is recognised that there are many people who may be at risk of harm through their environmental, personal, age or disability-related situations. In improving the way that services respond to their needs, they will be made to feel safer and their lives enhanced.

This original research follows up previous research in the preceding year. It is the widest ranging in its coverage of 76 per cent of English local authorities. Its value is that it measures progress towards full implementation of MSP; reports information and views from safeguarding leaders; and makes 20 recommendations to improve the implementation of MSP within local authorities, SABs and their partners.

Discriminatory abuse has been a distinct category of abuse in safeguarding adults policy since 2000, but it is rarely used in practice, according to recent official statistics. As part of a larger project, the authors undertook a literature review to clarify the concept, explore reasons for low reporting and consider recommendations for practice. The purpose of this paper is to present the findings of this literature review.

This literature review comprises 35 sources, which were identified using three academic databases, reference harvesting and sector-specific websites. Findings were developed through thematic analysis of the data.

The literature review demonstrates that definitions of discriminatory abuse stretch from an interpersonal emphasis in policy documents to a more structural approach. There are open questions about the status of discriminatory abuse as a category of abuse due to the complicated interface between discriminatory motivations and the abusive acts through which they are experienced. A range of factors can obscure its identification, particularly the hidden, stigmatised and normalised nature of discriminatory abuse. Some recommendations for practice are identified, but more work is needed to develop the practice vocabulary and required skills.

This study brings together existing research on discriminatory abuse to argue that it is time to revive this understanding of abuse and develop safeguarding practice with adults who have protected characteristics.

The purpose of this paper is to look at the impacts on adult safeguarding partnerships and practice over 18 months following the implementation of the Care Act (2014) from the perspectives of an independent Chair of two Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs) and a senior manager in adult social care in a local authority. They look at the areas of: wellbeing and safety, safeguarding activity and process, changing criteria and definitions, Making Safeguarding Personal, SABs, safeguarding adult reviews and advocacy.

The authors draw together information from published sources, experience and networks.

The paper argues that the impact on adult safeguarding and SABs has been greater than originally envisaged in a range of areas. This appears to be as a result of adult safeguarding having been made statutory, a new framework having been put in place, and added impetus given to a cultural change in adult safeguarding practice.

The authors have been engaged in delivering the adult safeguarding elements of the Care Act (2014) and so provide unique insight into the experience of making the changes required to meet the new statutory requirements and achieve the objective of protecting peoples’ rights to live in safety, free from abuse or neglect.

The purpose of this paper is to set out the similarities and differences between the legal frameworks for safeguarding children and adults. It presents the case for developing a Transitional Safeguarding approach to create an integrated paradigm for safeguarding young people that better meets their developmental needs and better reflects the nature of harms young people face.

This paper draws on the key principles of the Children Act 1989 and the Care Act 2014 and discusses their similarities and differences. It then introduces two approaches to safeguarding: Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP); and transitional safeguarding; that can inform safeguarding work with young people. Other legal frameworks that influence safeguarding practices, such as the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Human Rights Act 1998, are also discussed.

Safeguarding practice still operates within a child/adult binary; neither safeguarding system adequately meets the needs of young people. Transitional Safeguarding advocates an approach to working with young people that is relational, developmental and contextual. MSP focuses on the wishes of the person at risk from abuse or neglect and their desired outcomes. This is also central to a Transitional Safeguarding approach, which is participative, evidence informed and promotes equalities, diversity and inclusion.

Building a case for developing MSP for young people means that local partnerships could create the type of service that best meets local needs, whilst ensuring their services are participative and responsive to the specific safeguarding needs of individual young people.

This paper promotes applying the principles of MSP to safeguarding practice with young people. It argues that the differences between the children and adult legislative frameworks are not so great that they would inhibit this approach to safeguarding young people.

Institutional abuse is a worldwide phenomenon with the UK also subject to several high-profile abuse scandals perpetuated on people with learning disabilities and/or mental health conditions living within institutional settings. This study aims to provide a broad perspective of safeguarding practices within institutional care to inform practice and service development in this area.

A narrative overview was undertaken of a range of empirical evidence, discussion papers, enquiry reports, reports from regulatory bodies and professional guidance to explore safeguarding practices within institutional care for individuals with learning disabilities and/or mental health conditions.

A range of literature was identified that exposed and explored abuse in this context. Three key themes were identified: failings within institutional care; safeguarding issues and concerns; and good practice within institutional care. Whilst guidance is available, standards are explicit and protocols facilitate improvement potential in this area, a consistent message was that statutory recommendations for reform have not been effective.

This paper provides an important resource for practitioners and service providers involved in institutional care. An accessible overview of both the empirical evidence and grey literature on adult safeguarding within institutional settings is provided, along with a range of standards and resources that specify practice in these settings.

The purpose of this paper is to set out the evidence base to date for Transitional Safeguarding to support authors of Safeguarding Adult Reviews (SARs) where Transitional Safeguarding is a key theme in the review.

This paper draws on key evidence from several published sources about Transitional Safeguarding in England. This evidence is presented in this paper as a framework for analysis to support SAR authors. It follows the same four domains framework used in other adult safeguarding reviews: direct work with individuals; team around the person; organisational support for team members; and governance. This framework was then applied to two SARs written by two of the article’s authors.

The framework for analysis for Transitional Safeguarding SARs was applied as part of the methodology of two separate SARs regarding three young people. Key reflections from applying the framework to both SARs are identified and discussed. These included: providing an effective framework for analysis which all participants could use and a contribution for developing knowledge. Whilst many issues arising for safeguarding young people are similar to those for other adults, there are some unique features. The ways in which the gaps between children and adults systems play out through inter-agency and multi-professional working, as well as how “lifestyle choices” of young people are understood and interpreted are key issues.

This paper presents an evidence base regarding Transitional Safeguarding for SAR authors who are tasked with completing a SAR where Transitional Safeguarding is a key theme.

This paper draws together key literature and evidence about Transitional Safeguarding practice with young people. This paper argues that this framework for analysis provides SAR authors with a useful tool to support their analysis in this complex area of practice.

This study aims to describe the sector-led response to the COVID-19 pandemic and national lockdown in terms of safeguarding adults.

This study uses a case study method to examine a sector-led improvement response to COVID-19 and safeguarding adults.

The study describes how safeguarding issues and concerns were identified and brought together, and then responded to. It reviews this initiative in the context of crisis intervention theory and discusses the achievements of this initiative regarding COVID-19 and safeguarding adults during the period April–July 2020.

The study describes a unique joint initiative between the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, which worked with the Networks of Chairs of Safeguarding Adults Boards, Safeguarding Adults Boards’ managers and Principal Social Workers. This initiative developed resources and shared information and good practice to support a response in unprecedented circumstances.

The purpose of this paper is to describe the Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP) programme undertaken in 2013/2014 and summarises the learning and messages from this phase of work. This informed both the subsequent mainstreaming of the programme to all councils, and national policy on safeguarding adults in England.

Following the “test bed” phase in 2012/2013, MSP pilots were developed in 53 councils. They adopted a new outcomes focused and person led approach to adult safeguarding practice. Supported by the Local Government Association and partners, these councils changed their safeguarding practice and how adults were involved in safeguarding processes. Adults’ wishes were identified at the early stages of investigation, and reviewed during and at the end of the safeguarding process. In total, 43 councils provided impact statements on work undertaken, mainly between December 2013 and February 2014.

Key findings from the impact statements evidenced that adopting a personalised approach made safeguarding more effective and provided opportunities for developing social work practice. A range of challenges were encountered and overcome. The experiences of the MSP pilot sites informed the Care Act guidance issued in October 2014.

The MSP programme has stimulated an innovative culture change in safeguarding adults’ practice. It provides a means for Safeguarding Adults Boards to ascertain the effectiveness of local services in achieving the desired outcomes of vulnerable adults at risk of abuse or harm. Practitioners, managers and others will have an interest in this major change.

The purpose of this paper is to indicate the policy thinking that underpins the statutory provisions on adult safeguarding in the Care Act 2014.

The paper draws out the key themes and features of the Care Act that are relevant to safeguarding adults.

The author articulates the key messages from the Care Act regarding safeguarding adults.

As new legislation, the impact of these changes is yet to be established.

The paper summarises aspects of the statutory guidance which all agencies are required to comply with.

The paper emphasises the involvement of people in safeguarding enquiries.

The author is the policy lead at the Department of Health for adult safeguarding.