Agenda item

Steve Ashley, Independent Chairman of Hillingdon’s Safeguarding Adults Board, introduced the draft SAB Annual Report. It was confirmed that the draft report had been brought to the Committee to provide Members with the opportunity to review the content and request any changes or additions ahead of the final report, which was to be published later in the year.

 

An updated version of the draft report was tabled at the meeting. The Committee was informed that the draft report was still awaiting the inclusion of certain information, including details around domestic abuse and the year-end performance figures.

 

Mr Ashley provided the Committee with a general presentation on the topic of safeguarding adults.

 

It was confirmed that Safeguarding Adults Boards have three core duties:

 

1.    Develop and publish an Annual Strategic Plan setting out how they will meet their strategic objectives and how their members and partner agencies will contribute. 

2. Publish an Annual report detailing how effective their work has been.
3. Arrange Safeguarding Reviews for any cases which meet the criteria, detailing the findings and subsequent action.

 

It was highlighted that adult boards were still relatively new, and Hillingdon’s board was still growing. However, feedback from recent meetings had shown that the Hillingdon Board’s development was ahead of other London Boards.

 

The six principles of safeguarding adults were confirmed as:

 

•      Empowerment

•      Prevention

•      Proportionality

•      Protection

•      Partnership

•      Accountability

 

The differences between safeguarding children and safeguarding adults were highlighted, with adults having the right to reject safeguarding and put themselves at risk, should they wish. There was, therefore, a balance to be found between ensuring the safety of adults while respecting their choices.

 

Developments in Multi Agency working were set out, and included:

 

•      Business plan 2015-2019.

•      Launch of Making Safeguarding Personal

•      SAB Executive Board.

•      Community Safety Partnership.

•      Local Safeguarding Children Board.

•      Masterclass Sepsis Event

 

Sepsis was recognised as a serious issue, with the number of instances of Sepsis related deaths increasing. It was highlighted that deaths could be prevented if sepsis was identified early, and relevant training sessions had been run to ensure relevant staff were trained to recognise its symptoms. More training was planned for future months.

 

Ethnicity statistics were set out, though there were issues with the accuracy of this data. It was agreed that Mr Ashley would forward updated data to the Committee via the clerk.

 

In 2016-17, investigations conducted by social care teams found that the most common forms of abuse were:

 

•      Neglect  - 186 cases.

•      Physical abuse  - 83 cases.

•      Financial / material abuse - 89 cases.

 

Abuse occurred in:

 

•      Own home - 20%

•      Care homes - 28%

 

It was recognised that the remaining 52% could occur in a wide variety of locations.

 

Regarding Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), the Committee was informed that DoLS remained controversial, due to the amount of work and cost inherent to it. In many cases, costs resulted from court cases, which were seen to be increasing. Work was being undertaken to further review DoLS.

 

Further areas for development included:

 

•      Performance data across partner agencies - improving data analysis and challenge

•      Hoarding, Self neglect, Modern Day Slavery, Human Trafficking.

•      Continual developmental of SAB webpage.

•      Learning from Safeguarding Adult Reviews.

•      Homelessness.

 

Details of Safeguarding Adults Reviews (SARs) would be published later in the year, once the Executive Board had reviewed and officially signed-off on the information.

 

Priorities for 2017/18 included:

 

• Professionals to take a person centred and holistic approach to safeguarding.
• Advocacy for individuals who lack mental capacity or difficulty in decision making.
• Minimise repeat safeguarding issues.
• Robust risk assessment and management arrangements involving adults, their families and carers.
• Improving data analysis to measure outcomes.
• Increase engagement of the SAB with vulnerable adults.
• Ensure effective holding of agencies to account.

 

Members asked a number of questions, including:

 

Was the board confident that residents were aware of who to contact and how to raise safeguarding concerns?

 

Yes, there was confidence that issues were being raised to the appropriate points of contact. All issues are recorded, regardless of ‘threshold’. From there, an overview of issues is maintained by the Council, who is able to conduct internal reviews of services and partners, should those be deemed necessary. However, it was recognised that more work remained to be done in order to further raise the profile of safeguarding across the Borough.

 

Was receiving timely data from partners still an issue?

 

Receiving data from partners was, at times, challenging. Efforts had been made to simplify the process in order to make it as easy as possible for partners, and there had been a marked improvement in responses for this year versus previous years. However, there were still improvements that could be made. 

 

How confident was the Board that care workers were supporting their clients properly?

 

There was no evidence that companies were not fulfilling their duties properly. However, it had been accepted that the analysis of complaints had not been good enough in the past. Moving forward, analysis would be improved by reviewing individual companies and the type of complaints being received. The Board now included representation from Care Homes, which would help in this regard.

 

Regarding deaths caused by a lack of safeguarding, was the Board able to work more closely with coroners to receive their reports more quickly? The successful work of Barnet Council was highlighted.

 

It had been recognised that the delays in receiving coroner reports was not acceptable, and staff changes at the coroner’s office had occurred as a result. It was agreed that Mr Ashley would speak with Barnet Council to review best practice and how they successfully work with their coroners.

 

Would suicide be included within the safeguarding strategy moving forward?

 

Yes, this was not present in the draft report but would be included in the final report later in the year.

 

How was fraud dealt with as a safeguarding issue?

 

Fraud was difficult to manage by way of safeguarding, as instances of fraud would include involvement from a variety of partners, including the Police. In many cases, if the ‘victim’ was deemed to have mental capacity, no action could be taken.

 

What training had been offered, and which partner agencies had attended?

 

Training sessions on a variety of subjects had been offered, including domestic abuse, FGM, and forced marriages. A trainer had been commissioned for level 1-3 training on safeguarding for adults, from April 2018 onwards. It was agreed that details of which agencies had attended the training would be forwarded to the Committee via the clerk.

 

Concerns were raised over the accuracy of the draft report in respect of references to data that could be found on the Board’s website. The Committee was advised that priorities for the year included updating the website and that the references to the data on the website contained within the report would be accurate by the time of the final report publication.

 

RESOLVED: 

 

1.    That the draft report be noted;

2.    That updated ethnicity data be forwarded to the Committee via the clerk;

3.    That details of attendance at training events be forwarded to the Committee via the clerk;

4.    That the Board’s Independent Chairman speak with Barnet Council with a view to understanding how they successfully worked with their coroner offices; and

5.    That the Committee be invited to the Board’s next Sepsis event.