The Derbyshire Matrix

of 39

The Derbyshire MatrixLeapfrog Short Project

A Co-design workshop delivered byLeapfrog at ImaginationLancaster 2nd March 2016 at Lancaster University

www.leapfrog.tools

The Derbyshire MatrixThe Co-Design of a Tool to Support Decision Making for the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Adults

of 39 Page 5 of 39

IntroductionHow can a multi-agency group of professionals, stakeholders and advocates come together to develop a shared tool to improve decision making for the protection of vulnerable adults who lack capacity?

Local authorities hold the statutory responsibility for safeguarding but increasingly seek out innovative methods, approaches and protocols to enable them to engage other funders and key stakeholders in improved decision making for adult safeguarding. Derbyshire County Council (DCC) is committed to finding new ways of engaging partners in addressing this challenge on their own behalf, and also to take a lead in relation to other local authorities who might adopt a co-designed tool.

Leapfrog researchers met with DCC officers to discuss such an approach and an ambitious one-day event was planned to bring all of the parties together under the umbrella name of The Derbyshire Matrix.

The plan was for this group of co-designers to produce a new tool to support and to guide the interactions between multiple agencies across Derbyshire. There is also the intention that this tool is shared across the UK as a new standard for this approach to tackling the difficult questions that have to be asked at different stages throughout the safeguarding process. This innovation offers the potential for real and positive changes in the lives of some of the most venerable people in our society.

On the following page there is a description of the process of that single co-design day.

of 39 Page 7 of 39

The Workshop The participants travelled through snow from far-flung Derbyshire locations to work with Leon Cruickshank and Dee Hennessy and the Leapfrog project at LICA on the day of the event. This was held in the creative facilitation space of ImaginationLancster in Lancaster University. The workshop was funded as part of the Leapfrog research project. There is more information at www.leapfrog.tools

Unsure but enthusiastic, the group – senior safeguarding managers, front-line social workers, advocates, third-sector representatives, a fire officer, a CCG heath commissioner and the independent Chair of the Adult Safeguarding Board – worked robustly and precisely to consider the terrain within which we could legitimately work together, and then to identify the opportunities for change and improvement that might be possible within it.

The different professional perspectives in the room were discussed and reflected upon before, where possible, being brought into alignment. The word “wrangled” was used at one point to describe the challenge of achieving even that level of consensus within a single day. What was in-scope was clearly challenging, but the commitment of the co-designers was both determined and good-humoured.

of 39 Page 9 of 39

Contents10 Workshop Structure

12 Warm-up

14 Mapping Conversations

17 Group Map

20 Difficult Conversations

25 Co-designing a Solution

26 Tool Development

28 Next steps

29 Acknowledgements

32 Appendices

of 39 Page 11 of 39

Workshop StructureFocus Activity

Arrival • Participants arrive

Introduction • A welcome, orientation and briefing• A warm up activity with individual introductions and expectations for the day

Mapping conversations

• Mapping the safeguarding terrain in groups• Discussions and comparisons of each map

Joint Map • The whole group discusses and agrees on a map of the process together

Difficult conversations

• The whole group creates a list of difficult conversations that are printed on stickers. The stickers are placed on to the joint map.

Tool Development

• Groups worked on ideas for tools to address specific areas on the map.• Ideas were discussed and three ideas for tools were taken forward

Further Development

• Groups developed the ideas further.

Conclusion • Conclusion to the day and next steps

of 39 Page 13 of 39

Warm-UpParticipants began the day by capturing their name, their role and what they wanted to achieve from the day. This resulted in everyone promenading around the Imagination lab as each person spoke a little more about what they had written. This served as an introduction to everyone and also made explicit the breadth specialisms and interests within the room.

of 39 Page 15 of 39

Mapping ConversationsThree groups were then formed based on specialisms and interests as each of the groups constructed their own map of the safeguarding terrain. This process identified, for each constituency - social service professionals; advocates; and health and fire professions - , when, where and how within the process the difficult conversation needed to take place. Each group used a table-sized template to capture their thoughts that was designed to connect together in different ways depending on the shape of the process they agreed within their group.

The three different maps were then presented and discussed with the whole group. This highlighted what was different, what was surprising, if there were any insights or if anything was missing from the overall safeguarding picture.

See appendix A for the maps created.

Above: Participants compare and discuss the team maps

Above: The carer and advocate group map out their perspective on the process

of 39 Page 17 of 39

Group MapA discussion followed which focussed around the many different challenges within the safeguarding process. Each step was discussed and painstakingly agreed upon before it was transferred on to a large process template displayed on the wall.

This map was an essential point of focus and reference for the group in the next stage of the workshop and in the co-development of the tools.

See pages 18 to 19 for the map created.

Above: The group discusses what the overall process should look like

Above: Dee introduces the mapping task to the group

of 39 Page 19 of 39

Above:The overall map agreed by the whole group

of 39 Page 21 of 39

Difficult ConversationsWith the overall map complete, the group generated a long list of difficult conversations that might or should take place during the process. These conversations included details of who would be part of the conversations and what they would be about.

Over lunch, these conversations were converted into large, red circular stickers for the group to peel off and position on the overall process map to indicate where the conversations might or should take place.

Examples of the variety of these difficult conversations included:

• Clarifying the best interest• What could happen…• Who would you rather talk to• Fear of losing control• What they want to happen• Making it fear free

See page 22 and 23 for the completed map.

Above and right: The group place difficult conversation stickers on the parts of the process they think they apply.

of 39 Page 23 of 39

Above and right: The group place difficult conversation stickers on the parts of the process they think they apply.

of 39 Page 25 of 39

Co-Designing a SolutionTogether the group then prioritised four areas from the map, which they felt were both key to decision making in the safeguarding process and in which they felt improvements could be brought about through the co-design of a new tool. The fours areas chosen were:

• Fact-finding • Communication • Skills and knowledge• Disclosure and observation

Groups of three or four took a theme each and explored how it could be improved through discussion. Each group then presented their thoughts and ideas back to the whole group for wider discussion. A number of tools to address the challenges were starting to emerge at this point, which included a ‘Passport to Safety’ - a document to be given to the individual at the centre of the concern - and a prompt card for front-line staff to use to respond to concerns when they are first raised.

The group generated the idea of using the acronyms LENS and FOCUS to construct a:

• Sense of the big picture of the safeguarding process• The specific means of addressing the very particular interactions• That need to take place to bring that process to life

With intensive faciltation from the team, a suite of feasible tool concepts were developed from this and agreed upon for further refinement in the next stage. LENS and FOCUS to prompt front-line staff and the ‘Big Picture’, an overall, clear map for the navigation of the process.

See appendix B for photographs of the whiteboards.

Above: A group discuss the fact finding theme.

Above: The ideas for disclosure and observation are shared with the whole group.

of 39 Page 27 of 39

Tool DevelopmentIn three groups, divided by specialisms and interests, the details for the tool concepts were then discussed, decided and documented.

The three concepts were:

1 LENS: this tool is a guide for frontline staff to help them in their interactions with the people who draw a safeguarding issue to the attention of the local authority in the first instance. The aim of LENS is to support staff who may only very infrequently have a safeguarding-relevant interaction with the people they work with.

2 FOCUS: the tool supports frontline staff in their professional handling of an initial safeguarding issue. It is a reminder of the steps that need to be enacted within their institutions to make sure concerns and handled in the proper, timely manner.

3) The Big Picture: this tool is focused on supporting the individuals that raise the safeguarding issue or are otherwise involved in a potential safeguarding alert. The aim here is to support and communicate the process as a whole to enable people to see how they fit within it.

At the end of the workshop, these three concepts were shared with the wider group before finally checking that everyone in the room had gained what they needed out of the day.

See appendix C for photographs of the tool refinement work.

Above: Groups work on ideas for tools together.

of 39 Page 29 of 39

Next StepsThe Leapfrog design team will develop these ideas further before meeting up with the group again to share progress on their Derbyshire turf.

Other tools for engagement can be found on the Leapfrog website: www.leapfrog.tools

Special thanks to...Wendy Holehouse, Helen Head, Jane Parsons, Jacqui Willis, Mat Lee, Andy Searle, Gail Mace, Sophie Rajakrishnen, Natalie Gee, Paul Wooley, Ann Warrington, John Chell and Kay Simcox.

of 39 Page 31 of 39

This workshop was delivered at ImaginationLancaster, Lancaster University.The workshops were delivered by Dee Hennessy and Leon Cruickshank for the Leapfrog Project at ImaginationLancaster, a design research centre at Lancaster University. The Leapfrog project is funded by AHRC Connected Communities.

For more information about Leapfrog, visithttp://leapfrog.tools/

of 39 Page 33 of 39

Appendix A, Mapping Conversations

of 39 Page 35 of 39

Appendix B, Co-Designing Solutions

of 39 Page 37 of 39

of 39 Page 39 of 39

Appendix C, Tool Development

of 39 Page 41 of 39

The Derbyshire Matrix

Documents

Transcript of The Derbyshire Matrix