Agenda item

Consideration was given to the Adult Safeguarding Board’s Annual Report, introduced by Stephen Ashley, Chairman of the Board, and supported by Tony Zaman, Corporate Director - Adults, Children and Young People, and Andrea Nixon - LSCB and SAB Business Manager.

The Committee was informed that the report had been published later than expected, due to difficulties in obtaining data from partner agencies. As a consequence, the data contained within the report was now somewhat historic, and the value of that data was therefore reduced. Executive and Board Members had since met and spoken to partner agencies to impress upon them the importance of timely reporting, and it was expected that this would be improved moving forward.

In comparison to the previous year’s report, there was a renewed focus on good governance and regular assessment of the work being undertaken. To enable this, a new performance management framework had been implemented, which would allow for a detailed review of the work being undertaken by partners. Such reviews would allow for the identification of potential problems, which would then instigate the necessary actions to address those problems. Results of performance auditing would be submitted to the Executive Board Members for review. Partners would then be held to account, in cases of underperformance.

The Board’s priorities for the next 12 months were set out within the report. These included an increased emphasis on addressing domestic abuse. Following the completion of two domestic homicide reviews, the Board was working closely with the Safer Hillingdon Partnership to ensure awareness and engagement across the Borough. A new strategic lead for domestic abuse was now in post.

In terms of working practices, the Board’s approach was moving towards targeting specific areas of focus, such as suicide prevention or modern day slavery. It had been recognised that slavery in particular was an issue prevalent within the local area, due to the regular entry of people into the UK.

As a result of the newly implemented performance management framework it would be easier to review the impact of the work being undertaken, and it was expected that the next annual report would predominantly be a performance report.

Members asked a number of questions, and sought clarity on the following points:

Regarding section 5.3 of the report, and the encouraging of disabled clients to keep themselves safe, how was this being carried out?

A self-assessment audit was now used to determine the accuracy of what clients were saying versus what they were doing. Detail of this would be collected over the next 12 months, for reporting within the next annual report. This would include more robust information on what training was being conducted, and by whom. It was agreed that further detail on this matter be shared with Members following the meeting.

Training in general was an issue. Training was not always mandatory, and the commonly used e-learning was not felt to be the most effective training method, as it often devolved into a ‘box-ticking’ exercise. Difficulties in budgeting for training, which could be expensive, were recognised, and in addition, certain partners were reluctant to release staff for training, as this would result in them missing important working hours (e.g. A&E nurses). It was felt that leveraging the Care Governance Committee could help promote training, particularly within care homes.

How was the apparent lack of engagement with partner agencies being addressed?

To an extent this was due to a lack of understanding from agencies over the importance of engaging with the Board, as well as more specific reporting issues. For example, there were difficulties ensuring that GP’s were sharing information, due to concerns around confidentiality. A recent seminar with GP’s had focussed on this issue, and improvements were being discussed.

Information relating to the Immigration Removal Centre was governed by the Home Office. The Home Office would need to agree to the sharing of information at Board level. A request had been made, and their decision was awaited. It was noted that Hillingdon was the only Local Authority with a member of the Centre also sitting on the Board.

It was agreed that further detail on this matter, including detail of the partnership working with Brunel University, be forwarded to Members following the meeting.

Was further information available on the case review set out in section 8 of the report?

The case review was still ongoing, and a final report was due to be published by the end of November.

RESOLVED: 

1. That the report be noted;

2. That the officers be invited to provide a more up-to-date report at the Committee meeting scheduled for December;

3. That officers forward the requested information, as set out above, to Committee Members; and

4. That delegated authority be given the Chairman, Labour Lead and clerk to agree the Committee’s comments on the report, for submission to Cabinet.