Search results

Adult protection has been a relatively recent concept for staff working within the health economy. Priorities have focused on raising awareness, developing an understanding of safeguarding responsibilities, challenging established practices and attitudes and embedding the concept within the culture of NHS organizations and the daily work of staff at all levels. Although social services have the lead for safeguarding activities (Department of Health, 2000), statutory health bodies have now begun to integrate their adult protection activities more effectively and positively with social services and the police. This paper reviews the journey undertaken by the three primary care trusts (PCTs) in Kent and Medway in developing adult protection expertise and sharing multi‐agency adult protection practice with both social services and the police. The three safeguarding vulnerable adults leads from the PCTs have joined together to look at how far we have come and what we still need to achieve.

This paper seeks to consider the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and, in particular, the extent to which the functions of supervisory bodies can, or should be, performed as part of wider “safeguarding” responsibilities.

The paper reports the views of practitioners, given in response to comments made by the Care Quality Commission.

Some practitioners believe that DoLS and safeguarding functions should be consolidated, and some, that they should remain discrete; most, however, accept that the two functions should work closely together, and also that an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act is important for each; there is a suspicion that DoLS‐activity is greatest where the two functions are kept discrete (and, it is assumed, DoLS practitioners therefore have more to prove); there is also concern about financing, particularly within discrete DoLS services, and, furthermore, some suspicion about the whole business of “safeguarding”; the Neary case continues to cast a long shadow.

This is believed to be the first time practitioners' views have been sought or at least published on this question.

This paper aims to present a digest of the main discussion points and key findings from a recent Social Care Institute for Excellence report on risk enablement and safeguarding in the context of self‐directed support and personal budgets.

The paper explores how the personalisation agenda and adult safeguarding can work together in policy and practice and addresses some of the frontline concerns about empowerment and duty of care.

Evidence on how self‐directed support and personal budgets can be used to enable people to take positive risks while staying safe and emerging practice is examined. It suggests that person‐centred working in adult safeguarding, along with the mechanism of self‐directed support planning and outcome review, can support the individual to identify the risks they want to take and those they want to avoid in order to stay safe. It is clear that if frontline practitioners are overly occupied with protecting organisations and individuals from financial abuse, this will impact on the capacity of those practitioners exercising their duty of care at the front line. This means that practitioners are less able to engage with individuals to identify safeguarding issues and enable positive risk taking. Defensive risk management strategies or risk‐averse frontline practice may then result in individuals not being adequately supported to make choices and take control and, therefore, being put at risk. Practitioners need to be supported by local authorities to incorporate safeguarding and risk enablement in their relationship‐based, person‐centred working. Good quality, consistent and trusted relationships and good communication are particularly important for self‐directed support and personal budget schemes.

The use of “risk enablement panels” and “personalisation and safeguarding frameworks” are two ways to address some of the issues in practice.

The purpose of this paper is to set out the Law Commission's final recommendations for the reform of adult social care, with a particular emphasis on the recommendations for a new legal framework for adult safeguarding in England and Wales.

The paper discusses each of the Law Commission's recommendations for adult safeguarding and contrasts them with the proposals put forward at the consultation phase of the review.

The paper argues that a single legal framework for adult social care, including adult safeguarding, with have substantial benefits in terms of legal clarity, consistency and efficiency.

A clear and single legal framework is important for older and disabled people, and their carers, in order to understand fully their entitlements, and for local authorities and partnership agencies (such as the NHS and the police) in order to understand fully their responsibilities.

The paper provides a clear summary of the Law Commission's final report – in particular the recommendations for adult safeguarding.

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.

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.

This report aims to summarise the principal conclusions from the pilot reviews and key learning points to assist the improvement of safeguarding policy and practice.

A pilot programme of peer reviews of adult safeguarding arrangements was carried out in four English local authorities by Local Government Improvement and Development in 2009‐2010. The pilot programme sought to customise, test and adapt this established peer review methodology to adult safeguarding.

Key messages from the peer reviews of the adult safeguarding arrangements include: outcomes and experience of people who use services; leadership, strategy and commissioning; service delivery, effective practice and performance and resource management; and working together.

Councils may need to revisit how they develop their safeguarding arrangements in the light of major policy, financial and demographic shifts over the next few years.

First, the authors summarise arrangements expected from general practice (GP) surgeries, to optimize their safeguarding adults role. Second, using case-based discussions, the authors present specific safeguarding pathways (through which the authors have produced a downloadable interactive app) that the authors have developed to help Derbyshire GPs respond appropriately to safeguarding adults concerns. Third, the authors present the Derbyshire clinical commissioning Groups’ (CCG) approach to seeking assurance from their GPs that they have effective safeguarding adults arrangements in place. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The authors have based the paper on relevant current UK legislation and national guidance, the local approach to seeking assurance from GP surgeries; the authors adjusted the pathways on the basis of feedback received from eight out of 103 (7.76 per cent response rate) Derbyshire GP safeguarding leads who responded to an e-mail containing draft pathways.

Primary care staff are ideally placed to identify safeguarding adults issues and to act to protect those who are at risk of abuse or neglect.

The authors are unaware of any other paper that does all of the following: summarises policies GP surgeries should implement regarding safeguarding adults; details core competencies required of GPs regarding safeguarding adults; presents how CCGs can seek assurance from GP surgeries regarding safeguarding adults; and presents straightforward pathways for specific safeguarding adults scenarios. In one paper, now published in the British Journal of General Practice, the authors presented a generic safeguarding adults pathway.

This exploratory paper aims to examine the literature on the impact of COVID-19 on safeguarding adults practice.

A literature search was carried out in recently published articles to locate literature relating to COVID-19 and safeguarding adults in the UK and internationally. This included policy guidance and law, to describe the existing knowledge base, gaps in practice and areas that may require further research.

The findings suggest that measures to curb the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic gave rise to remote working and virtual safeguarding practice. The findings highlight the need for empirical research into the impact of virtual safeguarding adults assessments and effective ways to support the needs and outcomes of those who may be at risk of or experiencing abuse and neglect while shielding, socially isolating or when working in an environment where social distancing is required.

The paper is based on a review and analysis of published documents and not on other types of research.

Little is known about effective safeguarding adults practice in the era of shielding, self-isolation, social distancing and remote working. The paper adds to the body of knowledge in the field.

The purpose of this paper is to identify and encourage good practice in adult safeguarding by housing providers, despite their unclear and largely unregulated role in this area.

Literature search on policy and research on the role of housing in adult safeguarding. Good practice search, drawn from No Secrets consultation responses and more recently, from other housing providers.

Despite the current weak incentives for housing providers to engage in adult safeguarding, some have done so effectively, overcoming barriers to joint working.

This is not a comprehensive study of all good practice in this area; much will exist “unsung” and unrecognised.

Increase housing providers' involvement in adult safeguarding.

The paper is of value, as there is a dearth of literature on the role and potential of housing and adult safeguarding.