Agenda item

The Independent Chair, Leicester Safeguarding Adults Board (LSAB) submits the LSAB’s Annual Report 2016/17 and Strategic Plan 2017 – 2020. Members are asked to note and comment on the report as they see fit.

Jane Geraghty, the Independent Chair of the Leicester Safeguarding Adults Board (LSAB) submitted the Board’s Annual Report 2016/17 and Strategic Plan 2017 – 2020.

Attention was drawn to the following points:

·           The LSAB had received a peer review since its last annual report;

·           In contrast to the situation two years ago, the LSAB’s sub-groups now were all chaired by members of the Board;

·           It was recognised nationally that this was an area where it was difficult to collect meaningful data.  However, in Leicester a very good data set had been established;

·           The LSAB was generally in compliance with the duties within the Care Act, but was not complacent;

·           In over 75% of instances where risk was identified, that risk either was removed or reduced.  100% would not be achievable, as adults with capacity had the right to decide whether to change a risky situation;

·           Feedback showed that 89% of people achieved the outcomes that they wanted.  In cases where this was not achieved, it could be for a number of reasons, including some over which the LSAB had no control.  For example, people could want someone prosecuted, but the Crown Prosecution Service could decide that this would not be done; and

·           The Performance, Effectiveness and Quality subgroup also had considered this, in the context of a Making Safeguarding Personal multi-agency audit across Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland.  Recommendations from this included what to do when it was not possible to achieve the outcomes desired by the person.  In recent activity, approximately 70 cases were investigated and the person’s desired outcomes had not been achieved in four of them.  In two of these cases this was because prosecutions had been wanted by the people concerned and in two the people had disengaged from the process.

Ms Geraghty confirmed that there was very good attendance at Board meetings and partner engagement was reviewed every year, with assurances from partners that people would be safeguarded from harm being challenged.  Good work was being done by the partners, with a multi-agency audit on making safeguarding personal having received national recognition.  It was recognised that this was a journey, but all participants were aware of their responsibilities and they were pushed, challenged and praised where needed.

Members enquired what the extent of problems were due to issues identified in the partner statement by Leicestershire Police.  In reply, officers advised that they had not been a significant feature of formal safeguarding enquiries.  Many were emerging issues and their inter-relationship was not always straightforward.  For example, someone could need to be kept safe, but not as a safeguarding issue.  The Care Act was very specific about who safeguarding applied to, so a lot of individuals were not included in the definition.  It was hoped that, through training, staff would understand what incidents needed to be reported and to whom.

Ms Geraghty explained that partner agencies were expected to do their own awareness raising and training.  However, they recently had been asked to tell the Board of perceived gaps in training and some training had been provided to bridge these.  One example of this was a recent two-day course in relation to vulnerable adults who made risky choices, such as remaining in a situation when offers to remove them had been made.  Awareness raising included improving awareness of matters that mainly related to issues in some minority communities.

To ensure that service users could be heard directly by the Board, an engagement group had been established and was gaining momentum.  Some members of that group were service users and other were engagement officers from key partners.  Challenges set by the group had included providing information in plain English for anyone entering the system, (to help them to know what to expect), and simplifying the previously complex names of the Board’s sub-groups to one-word names.  The LSAB continued to try to find ways to talk to service users and carers, but this could be difficult, as not all users wanted to discuss their experiences and the Board had limited resources.  It was working closely with Healthwatch on this, with Healthwatch holding focus groups to help identify ways forward.

With regard to knowledge gaps, the priorities set out in the LSAB Annual Report related to individual learning by individual agencies.  Where gaps in knowledge were identified that affected a larger number of agencies, written guidelines could be produced, or seminars held.  Consideration also needed to be given to how the findings of serious case reviews would be disseminated.

It was noted that there had been an increase in the number of referrals from partners.  The Board welcomed the awareness that this showed, but the number of cases that could be dealt with by single agencies also had increased.  Standardised thresholds for referrals therefore would be examined by the LSAB, as it was recognised that different agencies could have different thresholds.

It was questioned whether front-line staff had the right training to make judgements about whether a case should be referred and whether information could be shared between agencies without breaching client confidentiality.  The Strategic Director for Adult Social Care and Health assured Members that all partner organisations tried to work together as one system.  However, they did not share the same databases and there were data sensitivities that could lead to access to a partner’s database being restricted.  This could make it difficult to respond to a particular situation.

The Commission also suggested that the Council could make it clearer what action it could take in relation to safeguarding.  Many people did not understand the concept of “pathways” of care, so it would be useful if clear steps could be described.

It was noted that a backlog of DoLS assessments remained, but this situation was not unusual across the country.  Additional staff would be required to clear the backlog, but they currently were not available and the Council did not have the resources to employ them.  As this meant that the Council was unable to fully meet its obligation to undertake DoLS assessments, it placed the Council at risk of being taken to court.  However, as no-one in England had yet undertaken such a prosecution, the actual level of risk was unclear.

In considering the role of the Principal Social Worker, it was noted that this was a key lead practitioner role, supporting, encouraging and sharing good practice.  The post-holder also supported the development of multi-agency training and provided an interface between care providers.  In addition, they spent time with social worker teams and provided support through reflective practice discussions.  Moving forward, it was expected that the Principal Social Worker would continue to work closely with all partners, including those at county and regional level, and would have a direct role in supporting the LSAB.

The Commission also discussed the development of the LSAB’s Strategic Plan.  Ms Geraghty noted that, although the Board was very clear what its priorities were, the Plan would provide a framework for them.  As the Plan was developing, the Board was considering whether any of its priorities could be addressed through cross-boundary working.

Ms Geraghty also confirmed that a priority for the Board was to find ways to help improve awareness of what could constitute “risky” behaviour in another person and provide clear information on resources, such as specific services, that were available to help in such situations. 

AGREED:

1)    That the Leicester Safeguarding Adults Board’s Annual Report 2016/17 and Strategic Plan 2017 – 2020 be welcomed;

2)    That the Independent Chair of the Leicester Safeguarding Adults Board be thanked for attending this meeting and asked to convey the Commission’s thanks to all involved for their contributions to the Board’s work; and

3)    That the Leicester Safeguarding Adults Board be asked to consider how awareness can be raised of what can constitute “risky” behaviour in another person and how to ensure that clear information on services that are available to help in such situations is provided.