Search results

The purpose of this paper is to outline what early support should be offered to children and young people with neurodevelopmental conditions including those who are autistic or have intellectual disability. A review of all child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) services in the Northwest completed by NHS England and Improvement (Doyle and Ryan, 2021) found that there was no clear Tier 2 offer (for mild to moderate mental health issues) for autistic children and young people or for those with intellectual disability. Following this review, a project group that had developed a model for mental health services for autistic children and young people and for those with intellectual disability (Wee et al., 2021) was tasked with articulating the “Getting Help” offer for children and young people with neurodevelopmental conditions, including intellectual disability.

A working group was created consisting of professionals from mental health, education and local authority and lived experience representatives of coproduction partners. A brief review of the background literature was also conducted. Six meetings were held to create a framework for the “Getting Help” offer and to discuss what the offer should be based on professional expertise and lived experience.

Recommendations for the Getting Help multi-agency offer included pre- and post-assessment support as part of a single attention deficit hyperactivity disorder/autism/neurodevelopmental pathway, community support for children with intellectual disability, access to adapted mental health support and the need for early recognition and support for avoidant and restrictive food intake disorder. Key themes from working group discussions included the reduction in the quality of services experienced by children and families due to silo working, which increased the risk of falling between multi-agency services and led to early signs of neurodevelopmental needs, or mental health issues being missed. Another theme was aiming for equity of access and outcomes.

This work is a response to a coproduced review of CAMHS in the Northwest and incorporates the lived experience of young people and families. It also adopts a holistic multi-agency neurodevelopmental approach rather than focusing on a single diagnosis or service.

This research was conducted as part of a PhD study. The purpose of this paper is to explore the factors taken into consideration when multi-agency practitioners were considering financial harm in the context of adult protection and how this influenced their decision-making processes.

An adapted q sort methodology initially established the areas of financial harm considered to have additional factors, which led to complexity in adult protection decision making. These factors were further explored in individual interviews or focus groups.

The data identified that the decision-making process varied between thorough analysis, rationality and heuristics with evidence of cue recognition, factor weighting and causal thinking. This highlighted the relevance of Kahneman’s (2011) dual processing model in social work practice. Errors that occurred through an over reliance on System 1 thinking can be identified and rectified through the use of System 2 thinking and strengthen social work decision-making.

This paper considers the practice of multi-agency adult protection work in relation to financial harm and identifies the influences on decisions.

This study aims to investigate the experiences of service providers supporting male victims and female perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV). The study explored the drivers, methods and treatments of female-perpetrated IPV, the nature and impact of abuse towards male victims, the barriers and facilitators to service provision and the impact on the practitioners themselves.

The study used a qualitative approach, using reflexive thematic analysis to analyse semi-structured interviews with 13 experienced service providers.

Two overarching themes were identified: systemic issues in service provision, including challenges with multi-agency approaches, funding and availability of services and the impact on practitioners; and gender stereotypes, which created barriers to male victims' help-seeking and influenced the treatment of female perpetrators.

The findings suggest the need for a multi-level approach, addressing gendered inequalities in IPV policy and funding, implementing gender-inclusive, evidence-based and trauma-informed practices, and raising public and professional awareness to challenge the dominant “domestic violence stereotype”.

This study provides a detailed, in-depth exploration of the experiences of service providers supporting “non-typical” populations in IPV, revealing the complex, multi-faceted challenges they face within a system that is inherently designed to support female victims of male perpetrators.

The importance of multi-agency information sharing is recognised as central to tackling crime and disorder in an intelligence-driven environment. However, whilst technology can facilitate and enhance this process, barriers to effective agency information exchange are consistently reported. This paper aims to categorise how information sharing takes place in a law enforcement operational setting and whether there is scope to improve the process.

There were two stages to the method; firstly, a select group of practitioners with intelligence-related experience (n = 28) were interviewed to identify the most common approaches to operational information sharing. This generated a categorisation model, which was tested with a larger group of practitioners (n = 73). A mixed-methods approach was adopted.

The research found consensus surrounding four different approaches to information sharing, labelled as: (1) inform and request, (2) meet and share, (3) customised database and (4) integrated systems. These are used at various levels of frequency, dependent on the operational context.

This research provides original evidence-based research to show law enforcement practitioners vary in the way they share information. By demystifying and categorising the process, it provides understanding for practitioners, policymakers and researchers, allowing barriers to be more readily tackled in a much more cost-effective manner.

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 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.

MASH has been a feature of safeguarding practices in England and Wales since 2011, bringing safeguarding agencies together to effectively share information and prevent organizational silos. Core agencies include the police, social care, and health, with key features of co-location, joint decision-making and co-ordination. A standardised definition for MASH implementation does not exist, and this lack of a clear definition has meant various structures have emerged, impacting on safeguarding practices. This policy brief draws on workshops with a range of safeguarding practitioners between May and July 2022, about the challenges of collaborative working practices and how MASH can become more standardised. Whilst national standardisation is required, there needs to be flexibility when implementing guidelines, so that practices and processes reflect regional needs and resources.

The study aimed to identify and define core components of Throughcare. The global prison population has reached its highest level to date (11.5 million), with comparative data on recidivism unavailable. Despite the global shift away from punitive and towards rehabilitative approaches, reintegration programming (Throughcare) is limited, ill-resourced or non-existent in many countries.

This study conducted a global e-Delphi consensus study of professionals working in prison and correctional services to define critical components of effective rehabilitation and reintegration programming. Consensus was defined a priori as 70% or more participants scoring an outcome from 7 to 9 and fewer than 15% scoring it 1 to 3.

Following a call for expression of interest circulated to the International Corrections and Prisons Association member list (n = 7282), 175 members agreed to partake in the e-Delphi rounds. In Round One, 130 individuals completed an online survey where 35 statements were scored by importance, each with opportunity to provide written feedback. A total of 33 statements exceeded the set threshold of consensus. Written feedback supported refinement and further development of statements in Round Two. A total of 108 individuals completed Round Two. A total of 39 out of the 40 statements exceeded the set threshold of consensus.

Consensus statements are useful to provide a shared understanding for inter-agency Throughcare partnerships, to inform national prison policies and to expand prison and support staff capacity building and programmes all over the world.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, to date, this is the first known attempt to elicit consensus from a broad range of professionals working in the field of prison and correctional services on core components of effective rehabilitation and reintegration programming.

A region’s transforming care partnership identified that autistic adults without an intellectual disability (ID) may be falling through gaps in services when presenting with a significant emotional and/or behavioural need in the absence of a mental health diagnosis. The region’s intensive support teams (ISTs) for adults with ID therefore piloted a short-term “behavioural support service” for this population. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate this pilot.

This study represents a mixed-methods service evaluation over a four year pilot period. The quantitative component examined referral rates and demographic data of accepted and declined referrals; and length of referral episodes and Health of The Nation Outcomes Scores (HoNOS) for accepted referrals. The qualitative component used thematic analysis to identify key themes relating to reasons for referral, clinical/therapeutic needs, and the models of support that most informed assessments and interventions at individual and systems levels.

The ISTs accepted 30 referrals and declined 53. Most accepted referrals were male (83%), and under 24 years old (57%). Average HoNOS scores were above the thresholds generally associated with hospital admission. Key qualitative themes were: transitional support; sexual risks/vulnerabilities; physical aggression; domestic violence; and attachment, trauma and personality difficulties. Support mostly followed psychotherapeutic modalities couched in trauma, attachment and second- and third-wave cognitive behavioural therapies. Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) did not emerge as a model of preference for service users or professionals.

This project represents one of the first of this type for autistic adults without an ID in the UK. It provides recommendations for future service development and research, with implications for Transforming Care policy and guidance.

Dual diagnosis [co-occurring mental health and addiction challenges] and recovery from the same are multifaceted and complex issues. These multifaceted and complex issues are difficult, time-consuming and require a multi-agency approach to their treatment. This chapter aims to present the characteristics that embody co-occurring disorders with the idea of defining this symbiotic relationship for the reader. This text will also highlight the paucity of resources currently available to those with a dual diagnosis.