Agenda item

The Head of Safeguarding and Learning Disabilities presented a report to the Panel on the Slough Safeguarding Adults Board Annual Report for 2014/15.  The preparation and presentation of an Annual Report was now a statutory requirement of the Care Act implemented from April 2015.  The local authority was formally identified as the lead authority with both Thames Valley Police (TVP) and the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) sharing responsibility for local safeguarding arrangements as core members of the board.

The Panel noted the six key safeguarding principles outlined in the Care Act of empowerment, prevention, proportionality, protection, partnership and accountability.  Three new categories of abuse had been introduced – modern slavery, domestic violence and self-neglect, which was often a factor in mental capacity assessments and had been a factor in Serious Case Reviews.  Members were updated on progress towards the strategic objectives of Making Safeguarding Personal and Ensuring Compliance with the Mental Capacity Act.  The personalisation theme was leading to a much greater focus on seeking to achieve the outcomes individuals wanted and shifted away from a process driven system.  It was recognised that not all outcomes people wanted would be achievable, but the new approach was a ‘different conversation’.

In relation to compliance with the Mental Capacity Act, one significant issue raised was the resource and practice pressures arising from Supreme Court judgements in 2014 that extended the definition of those subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) and had led to a substantial increase in DOLS applications.  In 2013/14 there had been 28 DOLS applications and this had risen to 391 in 2014/15 which was problematic both due to the cost pressure and the limited pool of qualified Best Interest Assessors required to assess each application.  The Panel discussed the pressures arising from the increase in applications and it was noted that a one off grant had been made to offset some of the costs.  The Association of Directors of Adult Social Services was making representations about continued support.  It was recognised that this was a national issue and Slough was in a relatively better position than some neighbouring areas.  The Panel queried the definition of ‘non-urgent’ in cases where assessment waiting times were extended to help manage the pressure.  The definition was explained and it was noted there were clear national criteria that were followed.

A Member commented that whilst a number of improvements to safeguarding were evident, casework highlighted that some issues of concern remained which required further improvement.  The Officer acknowledged this and stated that Serious Case Reviews were now published and agencies were working hard to learn the lessons from reviews, identify and manage risks and improve communication and training.

The Panel generally discussed the forthcoming Spending Review and the potential impacts for adult social care budgets and the resources that partners in health services and police were likely to have available to support such work.  The partners were working together across the social care system to mitigate the impact of further funding reductions for the local authority, but the challenges were likely to be significant.

The Annual Report stated that 4 authorised providers had been ‘amber’ rated and 2 had a ‘red’ rating at the end of March 2015, and it was asked whether there had been any subsequent improvement.  It was responded that a robust system was in place to review providers.  The ratings of individual providers varied over time with improvements being made where reviews had highlighted issues of concern previously.  The overall proportion of providers rated ‘red’ was approximately 10% of providers under embargo at any one time.  This figure remained fairly constant although it was stated there were currently less providers giving cause for concern and the issues and areas for improvement were known.  The Panel asked about the number of planned and unplanned visits to care homes and it was noted that reactive visits were made if a safeguarding concern was raised and to ensure issues were properly investigated and dealt with.

At the conclusion of the discussion, the Panel noted the report and thanked officers for the report.

Resolved –  That the Slough Safeguarding Adults Board Annual Report 2014/15.