Agenda item

The Leicester Safeguarding Adults Board (LSAB) submit their 2024/25 Annual Report which will be presented by the LSAB Independent Chair.

Agenda Variance – The chair made a change to the order of items to accommodate officer’s timings. Leicester Safeguarding Adults Board Annual Report 2024-2025 was taken next.

Cllr Russell noted that whilst she was not required to make a Declaration of Interest, she would not be taking part in the scrutiny of this item due to having been a participatory observer on the board for the period covered by the report.

The Leicester Safeguarding Adults Board (LSAB) submitted their 2024/25 Annual Report which was presented by the LSAB Independent Chair.

The following was noted:

• The Leicester Safeguarding Adults Board (LSAB) was enshrined in the Care Act 2014 Legislation.  This required that a Safeguarding Board should be set up in the area a strategic plan and an annual report must be produced and the LSAB commissioned Safeguarding Adult Reviews.  There was a need to meet the needs of people in Leicester.
• Whilst the LSAB is separate as a board, it operates in joint arrangements with the Leicestershire and Rutland SAB.  The arrangement had been successful for some time.
• In 2024 the Minister for Housing and Homelessness had issued guidance on the responsibility of Safeguarding Adults Boards relating to people who are rough sleeping.  There had been debate about the implications of this, as many felt that a wider group of people without an address were vulnerable.  However, there was a specific focus on rough sleeping, a requirement to have partners on the board with housing responsibility for rough sleepers and to commission Safeguarding Adult Reviews where deaths of rough sleepers were identified as meeting the statutory criteria.  Next year would be the first year of reporting on this.
• In terms of data, alert numbers had decreased, and numbers of safeguarding enquiries had risen.  This was in line with the national picture across data seen.  Factors behind this included people’s health and the economic environment.  Additionally, people were living longer and were sometimes in poorer health for longer periods of time.  Benchmarking had been done against national data.
• Specific areas of work included the representation of safeguarding enquiries against demographics.  It was recognised that in care homes, the white population was more represented, and this is a highly regulated area, meaning that safeguarding concerns are more visible and reported. This may explain, in part, the overrepresentation.
• Work had been carried out in the community to meet with community groups and raise awareness. The report included feedback on this.  The numbers in other communities had increased and members were in contact with people in the community so they could encourage people to explore engagement.
• Safeguarding and Domestic Abuse in the older community was an area of concern and elected members could help to get the message out.  This was also picked up through the ‘See Something, Say Something’ campaign, and messaging had been carried out via YouTube.  The types of abuse seen were consistent and consistent with the national picture.
• Financial abuse was an increasing issue.  Additionally, physical abuse was rising.  This was often symptomatic of wider issues, for example, where people did not want to pay for care, this could lead to safeguarding issues.
• It was important to involve people in enquiries and understand what they wanted from enquiries.  If agencies found that people were affected by abuse, it could sometimes be the case that the individual did not want action taken, however, there was a duty for the Local Authority to act, for example to avoid the risk of harm to others.
• Safeguarding review referrals sometimes went across years.  There were currently four reviews ongoing, including one being completed jointly as a domestic homicide review.
• Some issues raised as safeguarding were more appropriately addressed outside the process, for example by care and support assessments.
• It was important to learn from experiences and improve the learning offer and look at opportunities for development.
• It was aimed to promote the voice of people who use safeguarding support in the report.  It was aimed to be a live process and there was a need to use opportunities where people could feed back.
• It was necessary to look wider than the Midlands and to look nationally when drawing data comparisons.
• There had been a self-neglect audit, and safeguarding safety plans were in place.
• Priorities for 2026/27 included Equality, Diversity and Inclusion priorities, and also timeliness and proportionality of safeguarding alerts and also learning opportunities.

In discussion with Members, the following was noted:

• In terms of types of abuse, the picture was consistent across the three Local Authorities, and this had been similar to the previous year.  There had been a small increase in self-neglect enquiries, however, this had been expected due to a change in the process.
• Figures could be checked regarding psychological abuse enquiry rates.
• Organisational abuse was abuse conducted at an organisational level, this could include, for example, care homes having inadequate support plans for people at risk.
• With regard to abuse in care homes, this was a broad scope and could encompass many things.  For example, it could include falls, neglect, not providing food and/or fluids and medication errors.  The CQC required care homes to report many issues, and more was witnessed in care homes.  It was important to consider how care homes responded to this.  Often appropriate action was taken. 
• It was further clarified that 34% of enquiries were about incidents in care homes.  There was oversight of care in care homes, and it would be likely that most care homes had raised an alert at some point with the Local Authority.  This did not mean that they were unsafe or failing as it was part of the reporting process, it meant that issues were being picked up.  Many care homes acted quickly and addressed matters actively.
• It was important to note that some incidents took place between residents, so the issue was not always to do with care by staff.
• The public could report through open referral.  People could contact the Council directly, through email or phone, but also through their own social workers or the police.  The information on the website was clear that people were encouraged to make contact if there were concerns. The duty numbers and email address could be shared with members.
• In terms of disparity between ethnic groups, part of the reason that various communities were engaged with was to aim to get into the community at a local level, however there had been some limitations as organisations needed staff to do sessions.  The issue was on the agenda and the Board were aware of sensitivities around language.  Members could help as they had access to communities.  The issue was a wider partnership responsibility and anyone who could support would be helpful.  The issue was being tackled, and it was aimed to get through barriers and train staff with skills.  Training money was within the organisations and most training happened within the organisations; however, the Board undertook some of the work around YouTube and language issues.
• It was suggested that safeguarding messages could be embedded through English as a Second Language (ESOL) classes as people would already be attending classes.  This suggestion would be taken back to the Engagement Committee. 
• The Assistant Mayor for Adult Social Care was happy to meet with officers on how the issue could be tackled.
• Overrepresentation had reduced and numbers had increased on the Asian British population.
• In response to a query on the conversion rate, it was clarified that the fact that there was a conversion rate meant that people were picking up on the right things.  It was a recognition that there was right targeting, and people were receiving the support they required.
• When a large number of enquiries was looked at, it could be that there had been a bulge or a care home or provider with a large number of concerns had come through.  Therefore, there were a variety of reasons behind conversion rates, however, the conversion rate was monitored and audits were undertaken to ensure that people were protected.
• Where risk remained, the challenge was that sometimes people made the choice not to receive support.  Professionals would in most situations need to respect people’s choices.
• Some information went out in different languages, but this would be confirmed.

AGREED:

1)    That the update be noted.

2)    That comments made by members of this commission to be taken into account by the lead officers.

3)    That consideration be given to embedding safeguarding learning through ESOL.

4)    To look into recirculating The Making it Real group’s leaflet co-produced with safeguarding in accessible languages.

5)    To provide figures on psychological abuse.

6)    To share the duty line numbers with commission members.