Models of Adult Safeguarding in England: Findings from a Study of Costs and Referral Outcomes

Stevens, Martin; Norrie, Caroline; Manthorpe, Jill; Hussein, Shereen; Moriarty, Jo; Graham, Katherine

doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcw025

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To fully understand the characteristics of these referrals, the data was analysed based upon event description.Through this process, trends associated with individuals referred to MASH, alongside the demand placed upon MASH emerged, allowing the effectiveness and complexity of the MASH framework to be better understood. (Office for NationalStatistics, 2016;Stevens et al, 2016). Consistent with previous studies, Suspects were predominantly male and more likely to expose individuals to vulnerable RUNNING HEAD: Investigating the Characteristics of Vulnerable Referrals made to a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH).…”

supporting

confidence: 56%

Investigating the Characteristics of Vulnerable Referrals Made to a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub

Shorrock

McManus

Kirby

2019

Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs (MASH) have been a feature of safeguarding processes since 2010, aiming to increase information sharing, joint decision-making and co-ordinated interventions between safeguarding agencies. However, understanding surrounding the mechanisms underpinning MASH, and who they protect, is limited. This paper attempts to bridge this gap in knowledge by quantitatively examining referrals made to one MASH location in the North of England between 1 st October 2013 and 30 th November 2014 (n=51,264). The findings outline general features of a MASH framework, whilst demonstrating that demand placed upon MASH is influenced by a range of static and dynamic risk factors, including gender, age and ethnicity. The study highlights the complex nature of referrals made to MASH and suggests that whilst MASH has taken a step towards a multi-agency approach to safeguarding, questions regarding MASHs ability to effectively safeguard vulnerable individuals at the earliest opportunity remain.RUNNING HEAD: Investigating the Characteristics of Vulnerable Referrals made to a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH). Literature ReviewMulti-agency partnerships have been present within England since the 1980s. The Children Act 1989 established one of the first statutory requirements for inter-agency collaboration and joint working, concerning children and young people. Since then, other acts, policies and guidelines have been introduced to promote a multi-agency approach to safeguarding.These have included: recommendations emerging from serious case reviews, particularly Lord Laming's 2003 report into the death of Victoria Climbie; the Equality Act 2010; and the regular publication of Working Together to Safeguard Children. Throughout this period, the importance of providing a multi-agency approach to safeguarding vulnerable individuals has been well documented.RUNNING HEAD: Investigating the Characteristics of Vulnerable Referrals made to a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH).3The introduction of MASH, which is accredited to Nigel Boulton (Golden et al., 2011), is a recent example of multi-agency practitioners taking a shared responsibility to identify and manage vulnerability at the earliest opportunity. The rationale for MASH emerged from Boulton's experience of being a police officer, where he recognised that relevant intelligence needed to be collected first, before effective safeguarding decisions could be made. This observation has been reflected in many serious case reviews, illustrating that a lack of information sharing between agencies can result in vulnerable individuals being exposed to unnecessary harm or abuse (Laming, 2003;Haringey, 2009). Thus, by co-locating safeguarding agencies, MASH aims to move towards a more collaborative approach, increasing the likelihood of safeguarding decisions being holistic, effective and more proactive (Cullinan, 2013;Hanson et al., 2015). Agencies that are co-located in MASH include (but are not limited to), the Police, Children Services, Adult Services and Health Servi...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 56%

Investigating the Characteristics of Vulnerable Referrals Made to a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub

Shorrock

McManus

Kirby

2019

Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many of the advantages and disadvantages of safeguarding models in England, as highlighted by Stevens et al (2016), resonate with the experiences of the NI teams. Within the Adult Safeguarding Gateway teams, it is recognised that staff are developing a high level of expertise (Evetts, 2011) of professional groups were facilitated to take on the role of overseeing the safeguarding investigation, however on review, it was argued that the overarching responsibility of adult safeguarding investigations lay in the domain of social work, contingent on the skills and knowledge which are core to that profession.…”

Section: Adult Safeguarding In Northern Ireland: Legislation Policymentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Generic 'locality' teams with non-specialist staff, respond, at least in the first instance, to lower risk referrals, where adults are deemed 'to be at risk'. This model would seem to fit with the 'Partially CentralisedSpecialist' safeguarding model as defined by Stevens et al (2016) in which a centralised team undertakes all the 'high-risk' or complex work.…”

Section: Adult Safeguarding In Northern Ireland: Legislation Policymentioning

confidence: 93%

Adult safeguarding in Northern Ireland: prevention, protection, partnership

Montgomery

McKee

2017

JAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to outline and critique the current model of adult safeguarding in Northern Ireland.Design -The paper offers a critical analysis of adult safeguarding, legislation, policy and practice. Insights are offered from the Regional Adult Safeguarding Officer for Northern Ireland, and available research evidence is cited.Findings-Distinct features of Northern Irish society have shaped its adult safeguarding policy and practice in ways which differ from those in England, Scotland and Wales. Strengths and limitations of the legal and policy framework and practice systems are discussed.Limitations-The paper offers the viewpoint of the authors, which may not be representative.Practical implications-The potential advantages and challenges of the Northern Irish safeguarding systems are presented, and potential future developments highlighted.Social implications -Changes in the way adult safeguarding has been conceptualised have been highlighted. An emphasis on prevention and early intervention activities, with a key role envisaged for community, voluntary and faith sector organisations, has been noted.Originality-This paper provides an accessible overview of adult safeguarding in Northern Ireland which to date has been lacking from the literature.

show abstract

“…Policy contexts, both on the national or organisational level partly bring such structures into being. In the UK context, for instance, safeguarding policies would have provided a structure for interdisciplinary discussion of cases of abuse both by criminals such as in the example of John or from self-neglect in the case of Jesse (McDermott 2011;Stevens et al 2017). In our Dutch case, however, such structures were lacking.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Tinkering as Collective Practice: A Qualitative Study on Handling Ethical Tensions in Supporting People with Intellectual or Psychiatric Disabilities

Heerings

Bovenkamp

Cardol

et al. 2021

Ethics and Social Welfare

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The values of patient autonomy and community participation have become central in health care. However, care practices involve a plurality of possibly conflicting values. These values often transgress the borders of the individual professional-client relationship as they involve family members, other professionals and community organisations. Good care should acknowledge this relational complexity, which requires a collective handling of the tensions between values. To better understand this process, we draw on [Mol, A. 2008. The Logic of Care: Health and the Problem of Patient Choice. Routledge; Mol, A., I. Moser, and J. Pols. 2010a. Care in Practice: On Tinkering in Clinics, Homes and Farms. Transcript Verlag.) by developing the notion of collective tinkering. An ethnographic study was conducted in two teams in community housing services for people with Intellectual Disabilities and Severe Mental Illness. Collective tinkering is analysed (1) within teams;(2) between professionals, family members and professionals from different organisations providing care for the same client; and (3) in organising practices for a collective of clients. Collective tinkering involves assembling goods into a care practice, attentively experimenting with these care practices, and adjusting care accordingly within a collective of those involved in care for a particular client (group). When collective tinkering does not occur, the stakeholders excluded (e.g. clients or family members) may experience poor quality of care.

show abstract

Models of Adult Safeguarding in England: Findings from a Study of Costs and Referral Outcomes

Cited by 6 publications

References 16 publications

Investigating the Characteristics of Vulnerable Referrals Made to a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub

Investigating the Characteristics of Vulnerable Referrals Made to a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub

Adult safeguarding in Northern Ireland: prevention, protection, partnership

Tinkering as Collective Practice: A Qualitative Study on Handling Ethical Tensions in Supporting People with Intellectual or Psychiatric Disabilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About