Considering the safeguarding risks presented by agency or temporary social care staff: research findings and recommendations
| Published date | 15 June 2012 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14668201211236322 |
| Pages | 122-130 |
| Date | 15 June 2012 |
| Author | Jill Manthorpe,Michelle Cornes,Jo Moriarty |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Sociology |
Considering the safeguarding risks
presented by agency or temporary social
care staff: research findings and
recommendations
Jill Manthorpe, Michelle Cornes and Jo Moriarty
Abstract
Purpose – Little is known about the implications of employing agency staff on safeguarding or the
reasons why employers recruit staff from agencies who specialise in supplying staff to the sector or why
social care staff work for such agencies. This paper aims to present findings from a study of agency
workers in social care services in England.
Design/methodology/approach – Drawing on a review of the literature and policy documents, the
study involved a survey of local authorities and interviews were conducted with 93 agency workers and
other stakeholders. The interviews took place in three selected localities and data were analysed
thematically. The survey investigated local authorities’ use of agency workers, enquiring about reasons
for this means of employment and any trends. The survey findings were contextualised by national data
from England.
Findings – Analysis of interview and survey data revealed a variety of reasons for the employment of
agency staff. In relation to safeguarding, agency workers filled staffing gaps and met needs for social
care services or assessment; however, their abilities to offer continuity of care and sometimes to work
within existing systems were compromised. Some employers did not provide agency workers with
access to professional development opportunities or supervision.
Practical implications – Thefindings are used to develop recommendations for safeguarding practice
at local level.
Originality/value – There is a temptation to depict agency workers as presenting safeguarding risks:
this paper argues that a more rounded picture should be offered and a systemsapproach adopted.
Keywords Agency working, Social care, Workforce, Safeguarding, Social welfare workers,
United Kingdom
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The Serious Case Review (SCR) into the death of Jesse Moores (Brown, 2011) asked
searching questions about what had gone wrong in the care of this young man with learning
disabilities who lived in a care home in England. From its investigation of the circumstances
of the death in 2005, the Review identified a rise in risks to Jesse from choking and noted that
a safeguarding alert had been raised in the year prior to his death. One key point made by
the Review related to what it found out about the staffing of the care home. The SCR report
noted that on the morning of Jesse’s death two unqualified and inexperienced care workers
had been hired for the morning shift. These workers were working on a casual basis for an
agency. A pictureis painted of insufficient permanent staff, high staff turnover, allegations of
poor human resource practices that enabled people to possibly be working under false
names, and staff having other jobs to which they may have given priority over their work in
the care home.
PAGE 122
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
VOL. 14 NO. 3 2012, pp. 122-130, QEmerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203 DOI 10.1108/14668201211236322
Jill Manthorpe, Michelle
Cornes and Jo Moriarty are
based at the Social Care
Workforce Research Unit,
King’s College London,
London, UK.
This study was funded by the
Department of Health under the
Policy Research Programme’s
Social Care Workforce
Research Initiative. The views
expressed are those of the
researchers and not
necessarily those of the funder.
The authors are grateful to all
those who assisted in the
research, including study
participants, the interviewers
and transcribers, the Social
Care Workforce Research Unit’s
Advisory Group of people with
experience of using services
and/or caring, and the
Evaluation Co-ordinator,
Professor Hazel Qureshi.
To continue reading
Request your trial