Agenda item

The Director of Adults and Communities introduced a report that presented the Safeguarding Adults Board Annual Report and an overview of the safeguarding activities that had taken place during the period April 2018 to March 2019.

The Safeguarding Partnership Manager was then invited to provide the Panel with a summary of key points within the Annual Report.

It was explained that during the course of 2018/19 and in anticipation of the new Working Together guidance from the Department for Education, statutory partners in Slough had established the Slough Safeguarding Leaders Group.

The Group had overseen the establishment of the Slough Safeguarding

Partnership which combined the responsibilities of the Local Safeguarding Children Board and of the Slough Adult Safeguarding Board into a broader based partnership.  The new arrangement recognised that safeguarding concerns spanned both of these service areas, and were best carried out, strategically and operationally, by promoting shared understanding and strategies to manage complex issues.

New quality assurance arrangements had been put in place to monitor performance and the collective impact of all partner agencies.  New independent scrutiny arrangements had recently been established, including the appointment of an Independent Chair.  The role of Chair would provide independent challenge and scrutiny of the partnership arrangements.

The Director of Adults and Communities then provided a summary of the activities undertaken over the last few months’.  It was reported that there had been a 17% increase in the number of contacts made from January to June 2019 compared to those made during January to June 2020.  There had been a 54% increase in the number of Section 42 enquiries (relating to abuse or neglect of an adult) during the same period.  In the first three weeks’ of June 2020 there had been a significant increase of contacts made; the reasons for this were currently unclear.  In addition, there had been a significant increase in the number of safeguarding referrals made.  The number of hospital referrals had increased and there had been a small increase in the number of police contacts.  There had been a slight decrease in the number of referrals from the ambulance service.  Data indicated that there had not been an increase in any particular safeguarding area; rather there had been an overall increase in the number of cases reported.

The Chair then invited comments and questions from Members.

During the course of the discussion, the following points were raised:

• A Member asked how the Independent Chair had been appointed, who they were accountable to and if the post was remunerated.  It was explained that the appointment had been made by the Safeguarding Partnership and the post was accountable to SBC’s Chief Executive.  The Chair was remunerated for their time and the role was jointly funded by the member agencies of the Safeguarding Partnership.  It was felt that the appointment of an Independent Chair would result in better outcomes and overall would be most cost effective.  The leadership of the Partnership now sat with the statutory bodies rather then an Independent Chair. 
• Referring to information provided on page 62 of the report titled ‘Objective in 2018/19 Improving Identification of Risk to the Individual and Management of That Risk Referral Rates’ it was noted that in 2014-15, 466 concerns had been received, the number of enquiries raised was 90 and the conversion rate 19%; whereas in 2018-19 significantly more concerns (1486) and enquires (229) had been raised, however this had resulted in a lower conversion rate (15%).  Clarification was sought regarding the figures presented. It was explained that in 2014-15 the data had been monitored monthly, whereas this information was now monitored weekly.  Measures were now in place to ensure the right referrals were made to the correct agency and continual monitoring was undertaken.  It was explained that if the data indicated a high volume of contacts and a low volume of safeguarding it was clear inappropriate referrals were being made.  The higher the conversion rate meant that the professionals were making referrals to the correct agency. It was crucial that training and communication with the professional agencies was undertaken to ensure the systems worked as intended.
• In relation to Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, a Member asked under what circumstances applications for deprivation of liberty were refused and what alternative options were available if an application failed to be granted.  It was explained that the deprivation of liberty safeguards were put in place to protect people.  Deprivation of liberty was a formal legal process that required an application to the Council and approval by a doctor.  If not granted, alternative safeguarding options would be suggested.

·  Referring to the information provided relating to ‘Improving Identification of Risk to the Individual and Management of That Risk’ it was noted that the safeguarding data would be cross referenced with information held by the voluntary sector, Thames Valley Police and the Safer Slough Partnership to gain a wider understanding of the scope and types of abuse occurring in Slough.  It was asked if this task had been completed.  It was reported that the end of year data had not yet been ratified, but it was anticipated that the creation of a multi-agency risk tool would alter the figures.  The figures would be ratified by the end of July 2020.

The Chair then invited Councillor Strutton to address the Panel under Rule 30.

Councillor Strutton noted that a web link provided in Appendix A of the report did not work and requested that a functioning link be circulated to Members.

Councillor Strutton asked how many serious case reviews had been undertaken in the last three years and what areas these related to.  In view of the increased number of referrals arising from the Covid-19 lockdown, he requested further details regarding the type of abuse being reported.  In addition, he asked for information about the number of contacts and enquiries over the last three years from people living in supported housing where abuse had come from new or existing residents.

The Safeguarding Partnership Manager reported that there had been three adult safeguarding reviews undertaken in the last three years and they had all involved similar themes: self neglect; and inappropriate sharing of information.  It was explained that it was currently too soon to provide a summary of the types of safeguarding cases being reported during the lockdown period.  It was agreed that information relating to abuse cases in supported housing would be sought and a written response forwarded to the Panel.

The Chair thanked the Director of Adults and Communities and the Safeguarding Partnership Manager for the report.

Resolved –

(a)  That the report be noted.

(b)   That the Director of Director Adults and Communities be requested to circulate responses to the outstanding questions raised as detailed above.

(c)  That the Safeguarding Partnership Manager be requested to circulate the web link to the Panel.