Leadership and Safeguarding: How good leadership supports better safeguarding
Safeguarding Adult Collection (SAC) Presentation of Key ... · Safeguarding concerns that were...
Transcript of Safeguarding Adult Collection (SAC) Presentation of Key ... · Safeguarding concerns that were...
Safeguarding Adult Collection (SAC) Presentation of Key Findings to
Safeguarding Adults Board
Return Data Compiled by:
Nicola Reader, Senior Business Analyst
1
Introduction
• Records details about safeguarding activity for adults 18 and over
• Includes activity reported to or identified by councils with Adult Social Services Responsibilities (CASSRs)
• Includes demographic information about the adults at risk & details of the alleged incidents
• Return is split into 5 sections covering: Demographics, Case details, Mental Capacity, Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP), Safeguarding Adult Reviews (SARs)
2
Terminology
• Safeguarding concern Sign of suspected abuse or neglect that is reported to the council or identified by the council .
• Safeguarding enquiries The action taken or instigated by the LA in response to a concern that abuse or neglect may be taking place. Can range from a conversation with the adult to a more formal multi-agency plan or action. Two types: – Section 42: Where adult meets all of the section 42 criteria – Other: where adult does not meet all of section 42 criteria
but council considers it necessary & proportionate to have a safeguarding enquiry
3
Changes to 2015/16 return
• Public consultation (Dec ’14 – Feb ’15) about what changes needed as result of Care Act – Name change from Safeguarding Adult Reviews
(SAR) to Safeguarding Adults Collection (SAC)
– Section 42 Safeguarding enquiries – instead of referrals
– Collect counts of ‘safeguarding concerns’ and ‘Other safeguarding enquiries’ on voluntary basis
– Cease collecting data on whether individuals already known to council
4
Changes to 2015/16 return
– Four new risk categories (voluntary): sexual exploitation, modern slavery, domestic abuse & self-neglect
– Conclusion table no longer collected (substantiated, not substantiated etc.)
– New tables - Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP) – voluntary
5
2015 / 16 return Data
6
Section 1 - Summary Safeguarding concerns that were raised or safeguarding enquiries that commenced during 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016. * 577 were Section 42 enquiries, and 2 ‘Other Enquiries’
2014/15 2015/16
Unique Cases Unique Cases
Concerns Not collected 1180 1953
Referrals/Enquiries 632 659 579 676
Per 100,000 adults 560 580 510 595
England 2014/15 per 100,000 adults
243 ~ ~ ~
South East 2014/15 per 100,000 adults
206 ~ ~ ~
7
SAC return – Section 1
Table SG1a: Enquiries - count by Age Band
Table SG1b: Enquiries - count by Gender
Male Female
2014/15 225 (36%) 407 (64%)
2015/16 245 (42%) 334 (58%)
England 2014/15 40% 60%
18-64 65-74 75-84 85-94 95+
2014/15 186 (29%) 65 (10%) 138 (22%) 202 (32%) 41 (7%)
2015/16 198 (34%) 60 (10%) 149 (26%) 150 (26%) 22 (4%)
England 2014/15
36% 12% 23% 29%
8
SAC return – Section 1
Table SG1c: Enquiries - count by Ethnicity
White Mixed/ Multiple
Asian / Asian British
Black / African / Carib / Black
brit
Other Ethnic group
Refused Undeclared / Unknown
2014/15 606 (96%) 0 1 1 0 ~ 24 (4%)
2015/16 545 (94%) 2 5 2 0 0 25 (4%)
England 2014/15
85% 1% 3% 3% 1% 7%
9
SAC return – Section 1 Table SG1d: Enquiries - count by Primary Support Reason
Table SG1e: Enquiries - count by Reported Health Conditions
Physical Support
Sensory Support
Memory & Cogn
Learning Disability
Mental Health
Social Support
No Support Reason
2014/15 254 (40%) 9 (1%) 132 (21%) 82 (13%) 41 (7%) 5 (1%) 109 (17%)
2015/16 151 (26%) 5 (1%) 76 (13%) 85 (15%) 35 (6%) 4 (1%) 223 (38%)
England 2014/15
40% 2% 9% 15% 12% 4% 19%
Autism Asperger’s Syndrome/ High Functioning Autism
2014/15 6 1
2015/16 8 1
10
Section 2 - Summary
Counts and case details about safeguarding enquiries that concluded during 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016
Concluded Cases
2014/15 552
2015/16 847
11
SAC return – Section 2
Type of risk
2014/15 2015/16 England 2014/15
South East 2014/15
Physical 68 (12%) 112 (14%) 27% 27%
Psychological 82 (15%) 82 (10%) 15% 15%
Financial / Material
91 (16%) 137 (17%) 17% 16%
Neglect & Omission
286 (52%) 415 (51%) 32% 34%
Sexual 23 (4%) 41 (5%) 5%
8% Discriminatory 0 1 1%
Institutional 2 29 (4%) 3%
12
SAC return – Section 2
Type and source of risk
Social Care Support Other: Known Other: Unknown
IOW England IOW England IOW England
Physical 29% 27% 53% 60% 18% 14%
Psychological 32% 24% 54% 64% 13% 11%
Financial / Material
17% 19% 55% 63% 28% 19%
Neglect & Omission
74% 58% 23% 28% 3% 14%
Sexual 10% 16% 76% 64% 15% 21%
Discriminatory 0% 30% 100% 43% 0% 28%
Institutional 83% 69% 10% 19% 7% 12%
13
SAC return – Section 2
Location of risk
2014/15 2015/16 England 2014/15
South East 2014/15
Care Home 220 (40%) 369 (44%) 36% 36%
Hospital 51 (9%) 59 (7%) 6% 7%
Own Home 218 (40%) 304 (36%) 43% 40%
Service within Community
6 (1%) 8 (1%) 4% 4%
Other 57 (10%) 107 (13%) 11% 13%
14
SAC return – Section 2
Action taken
Social Care Support Other: Known Other: Unknown
IOW England IOW England IOW England
No action taken
53% 34% 34% 50% 13% 15%
Risk remains 29% 21% 59% 64% 12% 15%
Risk reduced
52% 35% 37% 50% 11% 14%
Risk removed
54% 44% 40% 41% 6% 14%
15
SAC return – Section 3
Counts of concluded safeguarding enquiries by age and mental capacity of adult at risk
Validation comment: We are unable to collect data on how many cases where the individual lacked capacity to make decisions were supported by an advocate, family or friend. This is an acceptable breach. Previous years have estimated this, last year left blank but HSCIC assumed 100% were supported.
Yes – Lacked Capacity
No Don’t know
Not Recorded
2014/15 160 (29%) 118 (21%) 43 (8%) 231 (42%)
2015/16 331 (39%) 514 (61%) 2 0
England 2014/15 25% 46% 16% 12%
16
SAC return – Section 5
Counts of individuals involved in Safeguarding Adult reviews (SARs)
Information provided by Fleur Gardiner In both years individual was in age band 75-84
2014/15 2015/16
Count where one or more individual died 1 1
Count where no individuals died 0 0
17
Notes
• We have higher than England average for Care Homes – is this being skewed due to our work with a number of care homes this year.
• Need to carry out more proactive work with Care Home Sector – some homes are very good at raising concerns/enquiries other homes we do not hear from
• Number of enquiries where hospital was the location of abuse is low – could be due to NHS dealing with the case or is it poor reporting?
18
Notes
• Raised importance of recording accurate Primary Support Reasons – as impacts on all of the annual returns, commissioning intelligence and budgets
• Important to record advocacy as will inform commissioning requirements
19