Doing ‘Serious Case Reviews’: The Views and Experiences of NHS Named and Designated Safeguarding Children Professionals

Abstract

Serious Case Reviews (SCRs), undertaken when a child has died or been seriously harmed, are an important feature of child protection in England. They are substantial exercises, but little research has examined the everyday work processes associated with their production. This study, undertaken during 2011, explored the views and experiences of NHS Named and Designated Nurses and Doctors for Safeguarding Children about their involvement in SCRs. Nineteen telephone interviews were undertaken and the data thematically analysed. The study found that doing SCRs involved additional work and staff did not always feel fully supported or prepared. Doing SCRs is a rigid and bureaucratic process which sometimes detracted from the case itself. The study also found mixed views about the value of SCRs and the extent to which they promote learning and child‐centred practice. The findings contribute to overall understanding of how this process is undertaken, and help open up to scrutiny the work required and the challenges generated for those involved in SCRs. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key Practitioner Message: SCRs are substantial exercises; little previous research has examined their production. Undertaking SCRs requires considerable time, effort and can be emotionally difficult; NHS staff involved in their production face challenges in doing this work. Producing SCRs may distract from the value of the outcomes and the extent to which they promote learning and child‐centred practice.

What is Really Wrong with Serious Case Reviews?

“…Devaney et al () and Peckover et al () highlight evidence of impactful reviews in refinements and improvements in standards, policies, procedures and practice, although they also acknowledge that dissemination has been poor and that the delay between the event occasioning the review and the production of the SCR can limit their impact. Alongside timeliness, other factors add to the challenges of embedding learning and driving change.…”

“…He also observes that agencies respond defensively to reviews. Others have also noted that training and support for those undertaking reviews have been limited and that the fear of being blamed or judged has impacted on engagement (Peckover et al, ).…”

“…There is no duty on agencies to cooperate and options are limited for independent chairs when agencies decline to contribute towards a board's budget or to provide information to assist with a review (Preston‐Shoot and Pratt, ). Nor does he appear to appreciate that previous governmental decisions regarding publication of reviews and the time frames within which they must be produced create frustrations and stress for commissioners and reviewers (Peckover et al, ), and open up boards to judicial accountability for decisions (Preston‐Shoot and Pratt, ). Finally, neither his analysis nor his proposals tackle the proliferation of reviews, with safeguarding adult reviews and domestic homicide reviews especially noticeable in issues which cross‐cut children and adults at risk, such as mental health and domestic violence.…”

Working Alongside One Another…

“…The emotional aspects of child protection work are also highlighted in the paper by Sue Peckover and colleagues () which reports on a qualitative study to explore the views and experiences of NHS named and designated child protection nurses and doctors about their involvement in Serious Case Reviews (SCRs). SCRs are conducted by local safeguarding children boards in England when a child dies or has been seriously harmed to examine the involvement of agencies and professionals in the child's case, to determine if lessons can be learned about the ways in which professionals and their organisations work together to safeguard and promote children's welfare (HM Government, ).…”