Transcript Care Act Webinar Presentation (Opens in a new window)

Care Act 2014 Consultation Webinar
For the Safeguarding Adults Return (SAR) and
Surveys Collections
January 2015
What is the Care Act?
• Act of law, passed by parliament in May 2014
• Represents significant changes to the law regarding the care
and support of adults
• Includes new laws about safeguarding:
– Section 42: Duty to make safeguarding enquiries
– Section 43: Duty to have Safeguarding Adults Boards
– Section 44: Duty to have Safeguarding Adults Reviews
– Section 45: Duty to share information
• For more information:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/23/contents/enacted
2
Why are we doing a consultation?
•
HSCIC data collections need to be updated to reflect new policy and
practice
•
HSCIC has to consult with stakeholders to agree what changes are
necessary and actionable
How were the SAR proposals developed?
• Care Act 2014 Statutory Guidance released in October 2014
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/care-act-2014-statutoryguidance-for-implementation
•
Draft proforma designed through collaboration between HSCIC and
SAR working group
•
Number of versions drafted and reviewed
3
How can I respond to the consultation?
Go to the HSCIC consultation website:
http://www.hscic.gov.uk/article/5276/Consultation-on-the-datarequirements-for-the-Safeguarding-Adults-Return-and-Adult-SocialCare-User-and-Carer-Surveys-in-response-to-the-Care-Act
4
Read the support document
5
Respond online, by email or by post
6
Support with responding to the consultation
Safeguarding Queries
Email the mailbox: [email protected]
Speak to Emma Hodges: 0113 254 2442
Survey Queries
Email the mailbox: [email protected]
7
Surveys Collections
Jonathan Kilworth
Surveys
Adult Social Care Survey
Every year, includes service users aged 18 and over in receipt of services funded wholly or in part by Social
Services.
Survey of Adult Carers in England
Every two years, includes those aged 18 or over, caring for someone aged 18 or over in receipt of services
funded wholly or in part by Social Services.
Possible Topics to Consider
Wellbeing: the surveys ask questions about Quality of Life; does/should the survey address wellbeing and if
so, how?
Choice: should the surveys address people’s perception of how much choice they are being given, for
example via personal budgets?
Short term and Preventative Support: what should the proposed survey of short term support cover, how
should it be carried out, if the two existing surveys continue?
Consultation respondents: help the consultation reach the appropriate audience! For example, your
commissioning team may have a useful and different perspective on surveys in relation to the Care Act. the
team responsible for surveys.
9
Safeguarding Collection
Emma Hodges
Terminology used in the consultation
Safeguarding Concern
Definition:
• The first conversation between a person concerned
about abuse or a risk of abuse and a council colleague.
• Must be judged to be a safeguarding issue by the
council colleague receiving the information to be
counted as a safeguarding concern in SAR.
Note: A conversation might not be necessary if the person identifying
abuse works for the council and also carries out the necessary
safeguarding. This should still be counted as a safeguarding concern.
11
Terminology used in the consultation
Safeguarding Enquiry
Definition:
• The enquiries and actions (if any) instigated by the
council safeguarding function AFTER receiving a
safeguarding concern.
• Must be confirmed as a safeguarding issue by the
council safeguarding function to be counted as a
safeguarding enquiry in the SAR.
12
Notes on safeguarding enquiries
• An Enquiry begins when enquiries are instigated and
ends when all necessary enquiries are complete and all
necessary actions have been agreed (if any).
• Enquiries are not the same as referrals
• Enquiries can be formal or informal
• The old local safeguarding thresholds no longer apply
• New universal threshold – Safeguarding enquiries must
be instigated if the adult meets the section 42 criteria
• Councils are likely to carry out some safeguarding
enquiries for adults who don’t meet the section 42 criteria
13
Process Example - Safeguarding Concerns
100 concerns
identified by
care professionals
100 concerns
identified by
general public
First conversation between the person who identified a concern and
the council contact centre / safeguarding function
Council colleague agrees
it is a safeguarding issue
= 180 Safeguarding
Concerns
Council colleague does
not agree it is a
safeguarding issue =
20 Non Safeguarding
Concerns
14
Process Example - Safeguarding Enquiries
180 safeguarding concerns received by council SG function
SG function instigate enquiries (fact finding)
From this point forwards they are classed as an enquiry.
HOWEVER, may not all turn out to be safeguarding enquiries
Confirmed cause for
concern =
160 Safeguarding
Enquiries
Unconfirmed / unrelated
to safeguarding =
20 Non Safeguarding
Enquiries
15
There are 2 types of Safeguarding Enquiries
160 Safeguarding Enquiries managed by the
council safeguarding function
Type is determined by section 42 of the care act.
Have all the section 42 criteria been met?
•
The council suspect abuse / risk of abuse
• The adult has care and support needs
• The adult is unable to protect themselves
130 cases YES =
Statutory / S42
Safeguarding Enquiries
30 cases NO =
Non Statutory / Other
Safeguarding Enquiries
16
Safeguarding Proposals
Key things to bear in mind
• Usefulness questions - We are asking if it is useful
to see this data at a national level not if it is useful
to collect locally.
• Cost questions - Referring to the compilation and
reporting of new or amended data items not the
operational costs of becoming Care Act compliant.
• The 2015-16 proforma will be available at the end
of March 2015
• We don’t expect local systems to be ready to
accommodate all of these proposals in April 2015.
18
Proposal 1- Demographic tables
Current return
• SG1 tables collect counts of individuals involved in referrals that were
opened during the reporting year
• Split out by whether individuals known to CASSR and different
demographics – age, gender etc.
Table SG1a
Classification
Number of individuals by age
18-64
65-74
75-84
Already known to CASSR
Previously unknown to CASSR
Table SG1b
Classification
Already known to CASSR
Previously unknown to CASSR
Number of Individuals by gender
Male
Female
Gender
Unknown
85-94
95+
Age Unknown
Proposal 1 – Demographic tables
Proposed return
•
Keep the age and gender categories
•
Remove the known and unknown to CASSR categories
(see proposal 10 of the consultation to give your opinion on this topic)
•
Replace with metrics determined most useful by the consultation
(see proposal 1 of the consultation to give your opinion on this topic)
•
These changes will apply to all SG1 tables
Age Group
Table SG1a
Metrics
18-64
65-74
75-84
85-94
95+
Age Unknown
NUMBER OF SAFEGUARDING CONCERNS
NUMBER OF STATUTORY SAFEGUARDING ENQUIRIES
NUMBER OF NON STATUTORY SAFEGUARDING ENQUIRIES
NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN SAFEGUARDING CONCERNS
NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN STATUTORY SAFEGUARDING ENQUIRIES
NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN NON STATUTORY SAFEGUARDING ENQUIRIES
Gender
Table SG1b
Metrics
Male
Female
Gender
Unknown
NUMBER OF SAFEGUARDING CONCERNS
NUMBER OF STATUTORY SAFEGUARDING ENQUIRIES
NUMBER OF NON STATUTORY SAFEGUARDING ENQUIRIES
NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN SAFEGUARDING CONCERNS
NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN STATUTORY SAFEGUARDING ENQUIRIES
NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED IN NON STATUTORY SAFEGUARDING ENQUIRIES
20
Proposal 2 – Case detail tables
Current return
• SG3 tables collect counts of allegations from referrals that concluded during the
year
• SG3 tables include information about the type of risk, location of risk, case
conclusions, the action and result of the referral.
• Each of these tables are currently split out by the source of risk
Table SG3a
Type of risk
Source of risk
Social Care
Support
Other - Known
to Individual
Other Unknown to
Individual
Physical
Sexual
Psychological and Emotional
Financial and Material
Neglect and Omission
Discriminatory
Institutional
21
Proposal 2 – Case detail tables
Proposed return
• For all of the SG2 tables, should we collect counts of:
– All enquiries
– Just the statutory enquiries
– Both statutory and non statutory enquiries
• The first two options would generate 3 columns of data per table
• The third option would generate 6 columns per table
Table SG2a
Types of risk
CONCLUDED STATUTORY ENQUIRIES
SOURCE OF RISK
Service
Provider
Other - Known
to Individual
Other Unknown to
Individual
CONCLUDED NON STATUTORY ENQUIRIES
SOURCE OF RISK
Service
Provider
Other Known to
Individual
Other Unknown to
Individual
Physical Abuse
Domestic Abuse
Sexual Abuse
Sexual Exploitation
Psychological Abuse
Financial or Material Abuse
Modern Slavery
Discriminatory Abuse
Organisational Abuse
Neglect and Acts of Omission
Self-neglect
22
Proposal 3 – Mental capacity table
Current return
• SG6 table collects counts of referrals that concluded during the year
Table SG6
Number of concluded referrals
Was the individual lacking capacity?
18-64
65-74
75-84
85-94
95+
Age Unknown
Yes
No
Don’t know
Not recorded
Of the concluded referrals recorded as
yes in row 1, in how many of these
cases was support provided?
Proposed return
• SG3 mental capacity table to follow the same structure as current return
• Decision needs to be made about which metric or metrics to collect:
–
–
–
•
•
All enquiries
Just the statutory enquiries
Both statutory and non statutory enquiries
The first two options would generate 1 table of mental capacity data
The third option would generate 2 tables of mental capacity data
23
Proposal 4 – Source of risk categories
Current return
• SG3 tables have 3 categories for the source of risk
Table SG3a
Type of risk
Source of risk
Social Care
Support
Other - Known
to Individual
Other Unknown to
Individual
Physical
Sexual
Psychological and Emotional
Financial and Material
Neglect and Omission
Discriminatory
Institutional
Proposed return
• Change the ‘Social Care Support’ category to ‘Service Provider’
• To encompass both health and social care workers rather than
isolate social care workers
24
Proposal 5 – Type of abuse categories
Current return
• SG3a table collects the following categories:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Physical Abuse
Sexual Abuse
Psychological Abuse
Financial or Material Abuse
Discriminatory Abuse
Organisational Abuse
Neglect and Acts of Omission
Proposed return
• Continue to collect the above categories
• In addition to these, should we also collect the following new categories:
–
–
–
–
Domestic Abuse
Modern Slavery
Self-neglect
Sexual Exploitation
NB – Some categories overlap each other. A safeguarding incident could be
labelled as one or more of these types of abuse. Councils should record all types of
abuse that are applicable to each enquiry.
25
Proposal 6 – Risk tables
Current return
• The categories in table SG3c combine information
about the action taken and result of action taken
Source of risk
Table SG3c
Action and Result
Social Care
Support
Other - Known
to Individual
Other Unknown to
Individual
No Action Taken
Action taken and risk remains
Action taken and risk reduced
Action taken and risk removed
Issue with current return
• Not enough options in the table to cover all eventualities
• Examples:
–
–
Action may be taken even if no safeguarding risk is identified
(adult at risk could be referred for care assessment or review)
A risk could be identified but no action is taken
(source of risk might pass away therefore removing the risk)
26
Proposal 6 – Risk tables
Proposed return
• Separate the information about action taken and the result of action taken
• Have two tables on this topic area rather than one
• Table SG2e would only include cases where a risk was identified
Table SG2c
Risk Assessment Outcomes:
Was a risk identified and was any action taken /
planned to be taken?
Risk identified and action taken
Risk identified and no action taken
Risk assessment inconclusive and action taken
Risk assessment inconclusive and no action taken
No risk identified and action taken
No risk identified and no action taken
Table SG2e
Risk Outcomes:
Where a risk was identified, what was the outcome /
expected outcome when the case was concluded?
CONCLUDED STATUTORY ENQUIRIES
SOURCE OF RISK
Service
Provider
Other Other - Known
Unknown to
to Individual
Individual
CONCLUDED STATUTORY ENQUIRIES
SOURCE OF RISK
Service
Provider
Other Other - Known
Unknown to
to Individual
Individual
Risk Remained
Risk Reduced
Risk Removed
27
Proposal 7 – Action table
Current return
•
The type of action taken as a result of the safeguarding concern is not currently collected
Proposed Return
•
It might be useful to have a table of actions
•
If people agree with this, which actions should we include?
Table SG2d
Action Taken
CONCLUDED STATUTORY ENQUIRIES
SOURCE OF RISK
Service
Provider
Other Other - Known
Unknown to
to Individual
Individual
Relating to the adult at risk:
Assessment of care and support needs
Review of care and support needs
Moved to different location
Management of access to the source of risk
Management of access to finances
Regular reviews
Referred for counselling
Referred for training
Other action
Relating to the source of risk:
Assessment of care and support needs
Review of care and support needs
Moved to different location
Management of access to the adult at risk
Management of access to finances
Regular reviews
Referred for counselling
Referred for training
Police action
Disciplinary action
Other action
28
Proposal 8 – Case conclusion table
Current return
• Table SG3d collects information about case conclusions
Source of risk
Table SG3d
Conclusion
Social Care
Support
Other - Known
to Individual
Other Unknown to
Individual
Fully Substantiated
Partially Substantiated
Inconclusive
Not Substantiated
Investigation Ceased
Proposed return
• It is proposed that case conclusions are no longer collected
• Case conclusions are felt to be out of step with current policy
• Outcome measures should focus on the wishes of the individual
29
Proposal 9 – Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP)
Making Safeguarding Personal
•
MSP is about having conversations with people about how we might respond in safeguarding situations
•
Aims to enhance involvement, choice and control as well as improving quality of life, wellbeing and safety.
•
The Care Act advocates a person centred rather than process driven approach
Current return
•
Information about MSP is not currently collected
Proposed Return
•
It might be useful to collect data on MSP
Table SG4
For each enquiry, was the individual or individual's
representative asked what their desired outcomes
were?
Number of concluded enquiries
18-64
65-74
75-84
85-94
95+
Age Unknown
95+
Age Unknown
Yes
No
Don’t know
Not recorded
Number of concluded enquiries
Of the enquiries recorded as Yes in row 1 of this table,
in how many of these cases were the desired outcomes
achieved?
18-64
65-74
75-84
85-94
Fully Achieved
Partially Achieved
Not Achieved
30
Proposal 10 – Known to CASSR
Current return
• As discussed in proposal 1, the SG1 tables are currently split out by
whether individuals were known to the council as shown below
Proposed return
• Cease collecting information about whether individuals
were already known to the council
31
Proposal 11 – Community service category
Current return
• Table SG3b currently has a location category of ‘Community Service’
Table SG3b
Location of risk
Source of risk
Social Care
Support
Other - Known
to Individual
Other Unknown to
Individual
Care Home
Hospital
Own Home
Community Service
Other
Proposed return
• Split out the community service category into two separate categories:
–
–
•
In the community (excluding community services)
In a community service
The community service category would relate to locations such as a
day care centre and the community category would relate to any other
area of the community, for example, a pub.
32
Any Questions?
Please get in touch!
Safeguarding Queries
Email the mailbox: [email protected]
Speak to Emma Hodges: 0113 254 2442
Survey Queries
Email the mailbox: [email protected]
33