Adult safeguarding in Sweden’s social services

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is twofold: firstly, to describe adult safeguarding in Sweden’s social services, and secondly, to analyse the changes in Sweden’s national policies related to its adult safeguarding legislation and discuss the implications. Design/methodology/approach An analysis of two government bills was carried out inspired by the What’s the Problem Represented to Be approach. Findings The background and review procedure that is part of the obligation to report mistreatment in Sweden’s social services is described. The policy analysis shows a change from a rights-based discourse concerning the duty of staff to safeguard vulnerable service recipients’ rights, to a discourse on the obligation for staff to be part of systematic quality assurance. The most conspicuous change in the representation of the problem was attaching the problem descriptions to a lack of quality instead of a duty to protect. Social implications The implications of the reporting procedure are discussed in terms of a general lack of channels for service recipients and their family members to raise their own concerns about mistreatment. It is suggested that there ought to be more legal and transparent channels for service recipients and their family members to file complaints. Originality/value This paper provides an overview of adult safeguarding in Sweden’s social services, which to date has been lacking in the literature.

Exploring mandatory reporting in social care and social services in Sweden

“…The result from the reported incidents in this study points to a less optimistic conclusion: mistreatment in elderly care seems to be reported, investigated and then addressed with a sentence on the need to introduce new routines. Such perfunctory processes may well explain the lack of evidence for recurrent incidents being prevented (Björne et al, 2021; Kjellberg, 2020). Following the overall aim of incident reporting (WHO, 2021), responses must be grounded in a sharper analysis of why an incident occurred, followed by actions to address underlying problems.…”

“…Furthermore, clarity in reporting and responding may ensue with the development of statutory guidelines (Donnelly, 2019). In the Swedish context, clarity on what to report and how to respond has been questioned by staff (Kjellberg, 2012) and the HSCI (2016), and the revision of the legislation in 2010 was a step forward to remedy some of the misunderstandings (Kjellberg, 2020). Internationally, the lack of clarity in both reporting procedures and what to report has been raised as an issue in need of amendment (Montgomery et al, 2016).…”

“…If an incident is considered serious mistreatment, the municipal social welfare board must refer the investigation to the HSCI. The HSCI will supervise the investigation or return it to the municipal social welfare board if it deems the measures taken to be insufficient or unsatisfactory (Kjellberg, 2020). Research has been critical of the reporting system in Sweden's social services, pointing out that there is no evidence of recurrent incidents being prevented or mistakes being learned from (Björne et al, 2021; Kjellberg, 2020).…”

“…Since 2013, the HSCI has registered approximately 1200 serious incidents in elderly care, disability services and Social Services in Sweden each year (HSCI, n.d.). Many incidents are believed to go unrecorded, and the overall number of reports by staff that are investigated is not known (Kjellberg, 2020). Our study is intended to fill this gap.…”