Agenda item

Purpose of the report:  Scrutiny of Services

To provide an overview of the safeguarding adults process, the role and responsibility of Adult Social Care within the process, the role and function of the Surrey Safeguarding Adults Board and the anticipated impacts of the Care Bill.

Declarations of interest: None.

Witnesses:

Dave Sargeant, Interim Strategic Director, Adult Social Care

Christine Maclean, Senior Manager, Safeguarding Adults

Steve Cosser, Cabinet Associate for Adult Social Care

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Committee was provided a presentation on the Council’s responsibilities in relation to safeguarding adults. Officers outlined the proposed changes to safeguarding under the Care Bill. The Committee was informed that officers were members of two Department of Health working groups examining the levels of thresholds for safeguarding intervention, and how service user evaluation was undertaken in regard to safeguarding.

2.    It was highlighted that, where the threshold for a police investigation had not been met, the Local Authority would not undertake an investigation of another agency. However, the Committee was informed that the Council would ask that agency to undertake their own internal investigation.

3.    The Committee queried whether the Council had the power to suspend workers from external providers. Officers commented that discussions would be had with the provider about how they intended to manage risk in light of an allegation. If it was felt that their response was inadequate then the future commissioning of services from that provider would be reviewed.

4.    The Committee asked what support the Council could offer in instances of forced marriage. It was confirmed that referral was made to the Forced Marriage Unit, and they would provide legal advice and counsel. The Council would also look at how it could support a person if they undertook to leave the marriage.

5.    The Committee questioned how the Directorate co-ordinated safeguarding with Children, Schools & Families. It was highlighted that the Directorates had met recently and made a commitment to ensure that the work of the Safeguarding Adults Board (SSAB) and Safeguarding Children Board (SSCB) was well connected. Officers confirmed that there were frequent meetings with Children safeguarding leads. It was highlighted that the Senior Manager for Safeguarding Adults was a member of the SSCB, and that Children's Services was also represented on the SSAB.  The Committee was informed that there were joint protocols in place in relation to raising safeguarding alerts and that there was a “think family” protocol in place between the two Directorates.

5.    The Committee also raised a question in relation to health services and safeguarding, officers commented that there had been no specific concerns identified and that the Directorate worked positively with health partners to address safeguarding.

6.    The Committee requested further details regarding the level of training compliance. It was agreed by officers that these figures would be circulated.

7.    The Committee was informed that there had been a re-organisation of staff to ensure that those with safeguarding expertise were on the front-line. The Elmbridge locality team was highlighted as an example of this, and the Committee was informed that the structure would be applied to other localities.

8.    The Committee queried who acted as a third party advocate in any safeguarding meeting. Officers commented that this model was in the process of being developed as part of a national pilot named ‘Making Safeguarding Personal’. It was anticipated that the pilot would end April 2014, with a possibility of further wide-spread implementation.

9.    The Committee had a discussion around the process in instances where a number of low level safeguarding alerts had been raised in relation to a single individual or care provider. It was explained that each team kept a log, and would consider historic concerns in relation to any new alert as a matter of common practice.

10.  The Committee queried what actions had been undertaken to address recommendations made as part of an internal audit in October 2013. The Cabinet Associate assured the Committee that the recommended actions had been taken, and highlighted that the quality assurance framework for commissioning was due to be completed in the next month.

Recommendations:

a)    That the Committee recognises Surrey’s preparedness for the forthcoming changes to safeguarding as result of the Care Bill.

b)    That the Directorate provide further evidence of co-operation with the Children’s Safeguarding Board and the six Clinical Commissioning Groups.

Action by: Interim Strategic Director, Adult Social Care

c)    That the Directorate support the roll-out the Elmbridge model county-wide.

Action by: Interim Strategic Director, Adult Social Care

d)    That the Directorate explore how trusted third parties can be involved in the safe-guarding process.

Action by: Senior Manager, Safeguarding Adults

e)    That recommendations of internal audit reports be addressed and included in future reports where appropriate.

Action by: Democratic Services/Adult Social Care

Actions/further information to be provided:

The Directorate to provide information on the level of training compliance.

Action by: Senior Manager, Safeguarding Adults

Committee Next Steps:

None.