Making any difference? Conceptualising the impact of safeguarding adults boards

Abstract

Purpose Criticisms of the effectiveness of Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs) led to legislative reform in the shape of the Children and Social Work Act 2017. Given parallels between the mandates for LSCBs and Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs), the onus is on SABs to demonstrate their effectiveness. The purpose of this paper is to explore how SABs might more effectively demonstrate their impact across the range of their mandated responsibilities. Design/methodology/approach The paper draws on definitions of impact from social work education, healthcare and from university research, exploring their relevance for capturing different types of data regarding the outcomes and impact of SAB activity. The paper also draws on frameworks for the process of capturing data and for implementing strategies designed to change practice and develop adult safeguarding services. Findings The paper argues that SABs have struggled to identify their impact and need to consider what types of impact they are seeking to demonstrate before choosing methods of seeking to capture that information. The paper also argues that SABs may have given insufficient thought to the process of change management, to the components needed to ensure that desired outcomes are embedded in procedural and practice change. Research limitations/implications This paper explores the challenges for SABs of identifying their impact and offers some theoretical frameworks that have defined different types of impact. The paper also draws on frameworks that identify the different components that are necessary for achieving change. This paper offers a contribution to theory building and is a response to the challenge of demonstrating the value that SABs add to adult safeguarding policy and practice. Practical implications A case study reviews the findings of the longitudinal service development and practice change initiative to embed making safeguarding personal in adult safeguarding. The findings of that initiative are mapped against the frameworks for identifying impact. Experience of implementing the initiative is mapped against the frameworks for effective implementation of change. Originality/value The paper presents frameworks for identifying the different types of outcomes and impact that SABs may achieve through their strategic business plans and for ensuring that the different components are present for the successful implementation and maintenance of change. The paper argues that the legal, policy and financial context within which SABs are located presents challenges as well as opportunities with respect to achieving and demonstrating impactful change. However, it also suggests that a more informed understanding of different types of impact may generate different approaches to data collection in order to capture what has been achieved.

Knowledge Mobilisation in Safeguarding Adults and Children for Healthcare in England

“…Another showed "bystander interventions" approach to critical decision making [53]. Social work and social policy featured some multiagency working for healthcare, highlighting the lack of evidence for the efectiveness of serious case reviews and adult safeguarding boards (safeguarding adult reviews) in areas such as adult self-neglect, harmful behaviours and/or preparing for court [78,80].…”

“…by more critically examining the evidence for adult safeguarding interventions designed to implement, improve, or assist such changes. Two cases show how the authors at once present their infuencing actions for practice [80] and simultaneously build a case for knowledge transfer as an infuencing action for practice [43]. In each case, the authors show who is doing the KMb and why, describing their practitioner and research roles in infuencing safeguarding function and impact.…”

“…Bellman et al [93] (Figure 5) called for knowledge transfer partnerships for systematic reuse of KT frameworks for utilising evidence closer to practice in adult safeguarding in hospitals, using the example of infection control. Similar to Preston-Shoot [80], the authorial voice (actors) is academic-linked research for practice engagement at the interface between health and social care (setting). Te knowledge transfer partnership is enabled by a knowledge action framework showing an evidenced movement from learning from experience to learning from practice.…”

Safeguarding adult reviews: informing and enriching policy and practice on self-neglect

“…SABs are accountable to several constituencies from which their mandate is drawn and accountable for the development, monitoring and review of adult safeguarding arrangements. Accountability is both explanatory and responsive (Preston-Shoot, 2020). Secondly, responding effectively to the complexities and challenges inherent in adult safeguarding requires that services and practice are based on a robust foundation of best evidence (Marsh and Fisher, 2005).…”