Search results

A policy of surveillance which interferes with the fundamental right to a private life requires credible justification and a supportive evidence base. The authority for such interference should be clearly detailed in law, overseen by a transparent process and not left to the vagaries of administrative discretion. If a state surveils those it governs and claims the interference to be in the public interest, then the evidence base on which that claim stands and the operative conception of public interest should be subject to critical examination. Unfortunately, there is an inconsistency in the regulatory burden associated with access to confidential patient information for non-health-related surveillance purposes and access for health-related surveillance or research purposes. This inconsistency represents a systemic weakness to inform or challenge an evidence-based policy of non-health-related surveillance. This inconsistency is unjustified and undermines the qualities recognised to be necessary to maintain a trustworthy confidential public health service. Taking the withdrawn Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between NHS Digital and the Home Office as a worked example, this chapter demonstrates how the capacity of the law to constrain the arbitrary or unwarranted exercise of power through judicial review is not sufficient to level the playing field. The authors recommend ‘levelling up’ in procedural oversight, and adopting independent mechanisms equivalent to those adopted for establishing the operative conceptions of public interest in the context of health research to non-health-related surveillance purposes.

The purpose of this paper is to provide insight into the reciprocal relations between the caregiving imparted by immigration centre managers and the role of the researcher in responding to the care that is given by managerial caregivers. To enable this, we draw on a feminist theory of care ethics that considers individuals as relationally interdependent.

The analysis draws on a semi-structured interview study involving 20 Finnish immigration reception centre managers.

Insight is generated by reflecting on moments of care that arise between research participants and the researcher in a study of immigration centre management. We emphasise the importance of mature care, receptivity and engrossment in building caring relationships with research participants by acknowledging the care they give to others. Our findings draw attention to the moral and epistemological responsibility to practice care in organizational research.

The paper highlights the relationality between practicing care in immigration centre management and doing qualitative organizational research, both of which rely on mature care, receptivity and engrossment in order to meet the other morally. We draw attention to the moral responsibility to care which characterises researcher–researched relationships and emphasise the importance of challenging methodological discourses that problematise or dismiss care in qualitative organizational research.

The purpose of this paper is to present findings from face-to-face interviews undertaken with 16 care and nursing home managers employed in homes situated in two English local authorities. The research sought to explore managers’ perceptions of the role of contract monitoring in the prevention of abuse.

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 16 care and nursing home managers.

Though personnel employed by the local authority who conducted contract monitoring were generally thought of positively by care home managers on a personal level, their effectiveness was perceived to be limited as a result of their lack of experience and knowledge of providing care, and the methods that they were required to use.

Though the research draws upon the experiences of only 16 care and nursing home managers in two local authorities, data suggest that current contract monitoring activity is of limited utility in determining the true nature of care and the presence of abuse.

Unusually, the paper explores care and nursing home managers’ perceptions of contract monitoring processes in terms of how they perceive their effectiveness in preventing abuse.

The purpose of this paper is to critically review the context of adult protection in Ireland with a focus on older people. The paper traces advances and current limitations in policy, regulation, practice and legislation.

A review of historical and current contexts in adult safeguarding in Ireland is presented with consideration of key public reviews and commentaries related to care provision, governance and the legislative status of adults at risk.

While Ireland’s journey to provide adult safeguarding responses for older people has progressed since 2002, there remain many gaps. Further work needs to be addressed urgently to enable a comprehensive alignment of fit-for-purpose, responsive legislation, practice and policy to meet the complex and diverse needs of an increasing ageing population who may require safeguarding support. This includes fostering robust inter-sectorial collaboration, safeguarding legislation and cultural change related to human rights approaches.

The paper is a discussion on the context of adults safeguarding in relation to practice, policy and legislation.

Identifies the need for significant reform in the Irish system of health service. Argues for an overarching, inter-sectorial approach to addressing adult safeguarding, which focuses on prevention as well as early intervention.

The paper offers a review of the current diverse elements comprising current adult safeguarding and older people in Ireland and integrates legislative, regulatory, policy and practice realities. Challenges are illustrated within the context of reactive rather than proactive safeguarding agendas which are linked to public scandals and debates. The paper argues for a more integrated and robust inter-sectorial approach to safeguarding underpinned by adult safeguarding legislation and an overarching governance structure.

Local Safeguarding Adults Board (SAB) policies, procedures, guidance and related documents on self-neglect were gathered and analysed, to map what approaches are being taken across England. This paper aims to identify areas of divergence to highlight innovations or challenges faced by SABs.

Self-neglect documents were identified by searching SAB websites. Data were extracted into a framework enabling synthesis and comparison between documents.

This paper reports on how English SAB documentation defines self-neglect, treats executive capacity, lays out pathways for self-neglect cases, advises on refusal of service input and multi-agency coordination and draws on theories or tools. Greater coherence in understanding self-neglect has developed since it was brought within safeguarding in 2014; however, variation remains regarding scope, referral pathways and threshold criteria.

This review was limited to published SAB documentation at one point in time and could not consider either the wider context of safeguarding guidance and training or implementation in practice.

This review provides an overview of how SABs are interpreting national guidance and guiding practitioners. The trends and areas of uncertainty identified offer a resource for informed research and policy-making.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first systematic survey of SAB self-neglect policies, procedures and guidance since self-neglect was included under safeguarding.