Search results

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.

The purpose of this paper is to update the core data set of self-neglect safeguarding adult reviews (SARs) and accompanying thematic analysis. It also explores whether lessons are being learned from the findings and recommendations of an increasing number of reviews on self-neglect cases.

Further published reviews are added to the core data set, mainly drawn from the websites of safeguarding adults boards (SABs). Thematic analysis is updated using the domains used previously. The domains and the thematic analysis are grounded in the evidence-based model of good practice, reported in this journal previously.

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. Multiple exclusion homelessness and alcohol misuse are prominent. Some SABs are having to return to further cases of self-neglect to review, inviting scrutiny of what is (not) being learned from earlier findings and recommendations.

The national database of reviews commissioned by SABs remains incomplete. The Care Act 2014 does not require publication of reports but only a summary of findings and recommendations in SAB annual reports. National Health Service Digital annual data sets do not enable the identification of reviews by types of abuse and neglect. However, the first national analysis of SARs has found self-neglect to be the most prominent type of abuse and/or neglect reviewed. Drawing together the findings builds on what is known about the components of effective practice, and effective policy and organisational arrangements for practice.

Answering the question “why” remains a significant challenge for SARs. 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. Greater explicit use of research and other published SARs might assist with answering the “why” question. Greater scrutiny is needed of the impact of the national legal, policy and financial context within which adult safeguarding is situated.

The paper extends the thematic analysis of available reviews that focus on study with adults who self-neglect, further reinforcing the evidence base for practice. Propositions are explored, concerned with whether learning is being maximised from the process of case review.

The first purpose of this paper is to update the core data set of self-neglect safeguarding adult reviews (SAR) and accompanying thematic analysis. A second purpose is to rebalance the narrative about adult safeguarding and self-neglect by highlighting two case studies where the practice was informed by SAR and the evidence-base of best practice.

Further published reviews are added to the core data set, drawn from the websites of Safeguarding Adults Boards (SAB). Thematic analysis is updated using the four domains used previously. Two case studies are presented, using the four domains of direct practice, team around the person, organisational support and governance, to demonstrate that positive outcomes can be achieved when practice and support for practitioners align with the evidence-base.

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. The case studies are illustrative examples of what can be achieved and signpost SABs and SAR authors to question what enables and what obstructs best practice.

A national database of reviews completed by SABs has been established (https://nationalnetwork.org.uk) with the expectation that, in time, this will become a comprehensive resource. It is possible, however, that this data set is incomplete. Drawing together the findings from the reviews nonetheless builds on 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, no published SARs have been found that were commissioned specifically to learn lessons from what had worked out well. More emphasis could be given to what might be learned from such cases.

Answering the question “why” remains a significant challenge for SAR not only 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. Greater explicit use of case studies with positive outcomes might enable learning about what enables positive system change.

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 presents two case studies where practice and the context within which practitioners were working closely aligned to the evidence-base for best practice. The paper suggests that SABs and SAR authors should focus explicitly on what enables and what obstructs the realisation of best practices.

The purpose of this paper is to update the core data set of self-neglect safeguarding adult reviews (SARs) and accompanying thematic analysis, and to address the challenge of change, exploring the necessary components beyond an action plan to ensure that findings and recommendations are embedded in policy and practice.

Further published reviews are added to the core data set from the websites of Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs). Thematic analysis is updated using the four domains employed previously. The repetitive nature of the findings prompts questions about how to embed policy and practice change, to ensure impactful use of learning from SARs. A framework for taking forward an action plan derived from an SAR findings and recommendations is presented.

Familiar, even repetitive findings emerge once again from the thematic analysis. This level of analysis enables an understanding of both local geography and the national legal, policy and financial climate within which it sits. Such learning is valuable in itself, contributing to the evidence base of what good practice with adults who self-neglect looks like. However, to avoid the accusation that lessons are not learned, something more than a straightforward action plan to implement the recommendations is necessary. A framework is conceptualised for a strategic and longer-term approach to embedding policy and practice change.

There is still no national database of reviews commissioned by SABs so the data set reported here might be incomplete. The Care Act 2014 does not require publication of reports but only a summary of findings and recommendations in SAB annual reports. This makes learning for service improvement challenging. Reading the reviews reported here enables conclusions to be reached about issues to address locally and nationally to transform adult safeguarding policy and practice.

Answering the question “how to create sustainable change” is a significant challenge for SARs. A framework is presented here, drawn from research on change management and learning from the review process itself. The critique of serious case reviews challenges those now engaged in SARs to reflect on how transformational change can be achieved to improve the quality of adult safeguarding policy and practice.

The paper extends the thematic analysis of available reviews that focus on work with adults who self-neglect, further building on the evidence base for practice. The paper also contributes new perspectives to the process of following up SARs by using the findings and recommendations systematically within a framework designed to embed change in policy and practice.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to update the core data set of self-neglect serious case reviews (SCRs) and safeguarding adult reviews (SARs), and accompanying thematic analysis; second, to respond to the critique in the Wood Report of SCRs commissioned by Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs) by exploring the degree to which the reviews scrutinised here can transform and improve the quality of adult safeguarding practice.

Further published reviews are added to the core data set from the websites of Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs) and from contacts with SAB independent chairs and business managers. Thematic analysis is updated using the four domains employed previously. The findings are then further used to respond to the critique in the Wood Report of SCRs commissioned by LSCBs, with implications discussed for Safeguarding Adult Boards.

Thematic analysis within and recommendations from reviews have tended to focus on the micro context, namely, what takes place between individual practitioners, their teams and adults who self-neglect. This level of analysis enables an understanding of local geography. However, there are other wider systems that impact on and influence this work. If review findings and recommendations are to fully answer the question “why”, systemic analysis should appreciate the influence of national geography. Review findings and recommendations may also be used to contest the critique of reviews, namely, that they fail to engage practitioners, are insufficiently systemic and of variable quality, and generate repetitive findings from which lessons are not learned.

There is still no national database of reviews commissioned by SABs so the data set reported here might be incomplete. The Care Act 2014 does not require publication of reports but only a summary of findings and recommendations in SAB annual reports. This makes learning for service improvement challenging. Reading the reviews reported here against the strands in the critique of SCRs enables conclusions to be reached about their potential to transform adult safeguarding policy and practice.

Answering the question “why” is a significant challenge for SARs. Different approaches have been recommended, some rooted in systems theory. The critique of SCRs challenges those now engaged in SARs to reflect on how transformational change can be achieved to improve the quality of adult safeguarding policy and practice.

The paper extends the thematic analysis of available reviews that focus on work with adults who self-neglect, further building on the evidence base for practice. The paper also contributes new perspectives to the process of conducting SARs by using the analysis of themes and recommendations within this data set to evaluate the critique that reviews are insufficiently systemic, fail to engage those involved in reviewed cases and in their repetitive conclusions demonstrate that lessons are not being learned.

The purpose of this paper is to update the core data set of self-neglect safeguarding adult reviews (SARs) and accompanying thematic analysis and explore the degree to which SARs draw upon available research and learning from other completed reviews.

Further published reviews are added to the core data set, mainly drawn from the websites of Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs). Thematic analysis is updated using the four domains used previously. The four domains and the thematic analysis are rounded in the evidence-based model of good practice, reported in this journal previously. Multiple exclusion homelessness and alcohol misuse are prominent in this sample of reviews.

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. Multiple exclusion homelessness emerges as a subset within this sample, demonstrating that SABs are engaging in reviews of people who die on the streets or in temporary accommodation.

The national database of reviews commissioned by SABs remains incomplete and does not contain many of the SARs reported in this evolving data set. The Care Act 2014 does not require publication of reports but only a summary of findings and recommendations in SAB annual reports. NHS Digital annual data sets do not enable identification of reviews by types of abuse and neglect. It is possible, therefore, that this data set is also incomplete. Drawing together the findings from the reviews nonetheless builds on what is known about the components of effective practice, and effective policy and organisational arrangements for practice.

Answering the question “why” remains a significant challenge for safeguarding adult reviews. 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. Greater explicit use of research and other published SARs might assist with answering the “why” question, drawing attention where appropriate to policies being pursued by the central government that undermine any initiative to end rough sleeping.

This 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 evidence-base also supports practice with individuals who experience multiple exclusion homelessness. Policymakers and practitioners have an approach to follow in this complex, challenging and demanding area of practice.

Criticisms of the effectiveness of Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs) led to legislative reform in the shape of the Children and Social Work Act 2017. Given parallels between the mandates for LSCBs and Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs), the onus is on SABs to demonstrate their effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to explore how SABs might more effectively demonstrate their impact across the range of their mandated responsibilities.

The paper draws on definitions of impact from social work education, healthcare and from university research, exploring their relevance for capturing different types of data regarding the outcomes and impact of SAB activity. The paper also draws on frameworks for the process of capturing data and for implementing strategies designed to change practice and develop adult safeguarding services.

The paper argues that SABs have struggled to identify their impact and need to consider what types of impact they are seeking to demonstrate before choosing methods of seeking to capture that information. The paper also argues that SABs may have given insufficient thought to the process of change management, to the components needed to ensure that desired outcomes are embedded in procedural and practice change.

This paper explores the challenges for SABs of identifying their impact and offers some theoretical frameworks that have defined different types of impact. The paper also draws on frameworks that identify the different components that are necessary for achieving change. This paper offers a contribution to theory building and is a response to the challenge of demonstrating the value that SABs add to adult safeguarding policy and practice.

A case study reviews the findings of the longitudinal service development and practice change initiative to embed making safeguarding personal in adult safeguarding. The findings of that initiative are mapped against the frameworks for identifying impact. Experience of implementing the initiative is mapped against the frameworks for effective implementation of change.

The paper presents frameworks for identifying the different types of outcomes and impact that SABs may achieve through their strategic business plans and for ensuring that the different components are present for the successful implementation and maintenance of change. The paper argues that the legal, policy and financial context within which SABs are located presents challenges as well as opportunities with respect to achieving and demonstrating impactful change. However, it also suggests that a more informed understanding of different types of impact may generate different approaches to data collection in order to capture what has been achieved.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to update the core data set of self-neglect safeguarding adult reviews (SARs) and accompanying thematic analysis; second, to draw together the learning available from this data set of reviews to propose a model of good practice that can be used as the basis for subsequent SARs.

Further published reviews are added to the core data set from the websites of Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs). Thematic analysis is updated using the four domains employed previously. A sufficient number of reviews have been performed from which to construct an evidence-based model of good practice. A framework is presented with the proposition that this can be used as a proportional methodology for further SARs where self-neglect is in focus.

Familiar findings emerge from the thematic analysis. This level of analysis, constructed over time and across reviews, enables a framework to be developed that pulls together the findings into a model of good practice with individuals who self-neglect and for policies and procedures with which to support those practitioners involved in such cases. This framework can then be used as an evidence-based model with which to review new cases where SARs are commissioned.

The national database of reviews commissioned by SABs is incomplete and does not contain many of the SARs reported in this evolving data set. The Care Act 2014 does not require publication of reports but only a summary of findings and recommendations in SAB annual reports. It is possible, therefore, that this data set is also incomplete. Drawing together the findings from the reviews nonetheless enables conclusions to be proposed about the components of effective practice, and effective policy and organisational arrangements for practice. Future reviews can then explore what enables such effective to be achieved and what barriers obstruct the realisation of effective practice.

Answering the question “why” is a significant challenge for SARs. A framework is presented here, drawn from research on SARs featuring self-neglect, that enables those involved in reviews to explore the enablers and barriers with respect to an evidence-based model of effective practice. The framework introduces explicitly research and review evidence into the review process.

The paper extends the thematic analysis of available reviews that focus on work with adults who self-neglect, further building on the evidence base for practice. The paper also proposes a new approach to SARs by using the findings and recommendations systematically within a framework designed to answer “why” questions – what promotes and what obstructs effective practice.

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.