Editorial
| Pages | 2-5 |
| Published date | 01 May 2008 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14668203200800007 |
| Date | 01 May 2008 |
| Author | Margaret Flynn,Bridget Penhale |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Sociology |
2© Pavilion Journals (Brighton) Limited The Journal of Adult Protection Volume 10 Issue 2 • May 2008
Editorial
This is an especially timely edition as:
1) the Department of Health, the Home
Office and the Ministry of Justice are
carrying out a review of the No Secrets
guidance. They are aiming to publish a
consultation paper at the end of July.
Anyone wanting to contribute ideas,
suggestions, evidence or questions before
the consultation paper is published is
welcome to write to
'Nosecretsreview@dh.gsi.gov.uk'; and
2) the Welsh Assembly Government has
created an adult protection project group
to review In Safe Hands chaired by Bob
Hudson, Director of Strategic Direction
and Planning, DHSS.
Both reviews confirm that an uncritical faith
in good intentions is not enough. Please join
The Journal of Adult Protection in responding
to the invitations to contribute to these
reviews. A skim over No Secrets and In Safe
Hands, the Association of Directors of Adult
Social Services’ press release, Strengthen the
Law to Protect Vulnerable Adults, back copies
of The Journal of Adult Protection and recent
serious case reviews should provide ideas for
enhancing the crucial work of adult
protection. Examples of potential areas to
cover are:
■dedicated funding for adult
protection activities
■attention to discrepancies in regulation
and weaknesses in enforcement provisions
■unregulated professionals undertaking
personal and intimate care
■imperatives to partnership working have
to have a statutory footing and specify the
importance of all levels of an organisation,
from frontline staff to chief officers,
preventing and responding to abuse
■nationally commissioned monitoring of
the successors of No Secrets and In
Safe Hands
■clarity regarding ‘choice’ and self-
determination – if they both result in non-
action, what purpose is being served? –
and links with the ‘personalisation’ agenda
of self-directed care (eg. Flynn, 2005)
■attention to the fact that councils
responsible for professional regulation are
responsible to different bodies
■the surfeit of pressures not to raise
concerns via whistle-blowing (eg.
Professional Social Work, 2007)
■as there is no requirement on the NHS to
employ a lead officer, how should trusts,
primary care trusts and health boards
determine who should contribute to the
work of adult protection committees and
do their nominees have the authority to
make strategic and resource decisions?
■are PCTs and health boards ensuring
that safeguarding and its monitoring are
integral to all contracting arrangements
with providers of their services,
including GPs?
■do GPs charge for submitting evidence
and attending strategy meetings for
example, and if so, should local authorities
without any dedicated funding for their
safeguarding work, pay?
■what level of resources is devoted by NHS
trusts and health boards to ensure that all
staff are properly trained in adult
protection procedures and practices?
To continue reading
Request your trial