Editorial
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14668203200300028 |
| Date | 01 December 2003 |
| Pages | 2-3 |
| Published date | 01 December 2003 |
| Author | Paul Kingston |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Sociology |
2© Pavilion Publishing (Brighton) Limited The Journal of Adult Protection Volume 5 Issue 4 • December 2003
Editorial
The topic of elder abuse will, I hope, continue
to have a high political profile with the
announcement that the House of Commons
health committee has made known the terms
of reference for a single evidence session on
elder abuse, scheduled for 11 December
2003. The committee has stated that:
‘A small, but significant, proportion of older
people experience abuse from those who care
for them; either in the context of informal
care (by family and friends), or health and
social care staff. A commonly used definition
for elder abuse is: “A single or repeated act
or lack of appropriate action occurring
within any relationship where there is an
expectation of trust which causes harm or
distress to an older person”.’
The committee is due to take written and oral
evidence. An extensive range of questions is
scheduled which includes prevalence, causes
intervention strategies, and the role of CHI,
CHAI and the NCSC. The Journal of Adult
Protection will report on the findings of this
committee as soon as possible.
The first two articles in this issue examine
the complex task of reporting and responding
to abusive situations, while the third asks
whether user consultation is a reality when
adult protection policies are formulated.
Guy Wishart’s article asks important
questions about the reality of service user
involvement in the development of policy –
in this case, adult protection procedures and
guidelines. This national survey of all social
services departments (SSDs) in the UK found
that the rhetoric of service user involvement
in the policy-making process is clearly not
operationalised by SSDs. Only a minority of
SSDs had consulted people with learning
disabilities when formulating policies.
However, when and if procedures were being
developed with a specific focus on people
with learning disabilities, they were
significantly more likely to be consulted.
Hierarchies of consultation were also noted;
unfortunately, people with learning
disabilities were the least likely to be
consulted.
Jill Manthorpe’s paper concentrates on the
development of local reviews in adult
protection. Utilising comparisons with Part 8
reviews and mental health inquiries following
a homicide, she describes how Hull and East
Riding Adult Protection Committee
developed specific local criteria for an inquiry
or review. While such reviews in adult
protection have no statutory status or
equivalent guidance – for example, Working
Together guidance (DoH, 1999) – Manthorpe
argues that such inquiries offer an element of
illumination that is so far missing in serious
cases (death or serious injury) or when there
are public interest issues. This paper then
describes the criteria for review, how to call a
review and what the learning process might
consist of.
The third paper, by Kate Taylor and Karen
Dodd, considers why under-reporting of adult
abuse remains a serious concern. Using a
semi-structured interview methodology, 150
respondents were interviewed face-to-face. A
J/194/11/03JAP5.4DecInsides 8/12/03 10:56 am Page 2
To continue reading
Request your trial