Safeguarding in practice - the role of Adult Social Care

The council is responsible for the public law (Care Act 2014) decision regarding whether a statutory Section 42 adult safeguarding enquiry should be undertaken and in leading such enquiries.

When a referral is received, a practitioner from Adult Social Care will review it to determine if it meets the requirements for a Section 42 enquiry.

That is, the referral relates to an adult with care and support needs who is:

• experiencing or at risk of abuse or neglect
• unable to protect themselves because of their care and support needs

Where a decision is made to proceed with an enquiry, a safeguarding enquiry plan will be developed. This will identify what actions need to be undertaken and by whom. The lead enquiry officer may talk to other people, such as family members, staff members, GPs, friends and possibly the police. If the police confirm that a crime has been committed, they may also investigate what has happened.

Throughout the process, the adult at risk will be supported to help them decide what they want to happen and then concentrate on improving the situation for that person, and address what has caused the abuse or neglect. Where there is an immediate risk of harm, social workers will act quickly to implement protective measures for the adult at risk.

If a decision is made not to proceed with safeguarding enquiry the practitioner may instead advise an alternative response, such as an assessment of the person's care and support needs to see if any additional support can be put in place.

Kyle's story

Kyle is a man in his late 50s with a learning disability who receives support from a support worker to help manage his finances. A safeguarding concern was raised following an allegation around a support worker’s use of Kyle’s funds, such as routinely buying higher-cost organic or specialist foods which Kyle may not have chosen himself. Following a review of the information available, a decision was made to proceed to a Section 42 enquiry.

The police were notified of a potential crime but did not take forward an investigation, citing no further action and no criminal charges to be brought against the support worker. The Section 42 enquiry was also inconclusive, as there was no evidence of intentional misuse of Kyle’s funds. However, it was acknowledged that the support worker may have been buying items for Kyle that he himself would not choose. It was established that the support worker took away Kyle’s right to choice and independence with his food and put his own views and preferences on Kyle.

Protective measures were put in place including more oversight from the Client Affairs team regarding money management, and reiteration of Kyle’s choices around food so that those supporting him were aware.

Kyle did not have any friends or family who could support him. To ensure Kyle could fully engage with the Section 42 process, an external advocate was present during the strategy meeting about the concern to ensure Kyle could voice his views and wishes.

During this meeting, it was also discovered that a rug had been purchased for Kyle using his money, despite it being clear in his care plan that he does not use rugs due to potential trip hazard. As Kyle likes to go to his local coffee shop for coffee and cake with his care worker, vouchers for a coffee shop were suggested as a reimbursement measure from the care provider as they were unable to get a refund of the rug. This remedial action was agreed upon with the Commissioning team and Quality Assurance team before moving ahead.

Following the conclusion of this enquiry process, the care provider contacted the enquiry officer and safeguarding adults manager to thank them for the coordination of the Section 42 response.

"I would like to thank you both for the strategy meeting yesterday and how well organised it was. It was lovely to see that Kyle was part of the meeting and that you got him involved and interacted with him, as previously with some other local authorities, we have not had these positive experiences."

Embedding the key principles of adult safeguarding

Kyle’s case provides a good example of embedding the principles of Making Safeguarding Personal, as well as the 6 principles of adult safeguarding as laid out in the Care Act 2014.

1. Kyle was supported and encouraged to make his own decisions, with the support of an external advocate (Empowerment)
2. Whilst no abuse was found to have occurred, the enquiry process allowed for protective measures to be put in place to prevent future harm (Prevention)
3. The enquiry officer took the least intrusive response appropriate to the risk presented (Proportionality)
4. The Section 42 enquiry process shows collaboration and support to keep Kyle safe (Partnership)
5. Kyle has been supported to understand how he can raise any concerns he may have in the future (Protection)
6. The care provider approached the enquiry process with openness and transparency (Accountability)