Editorial
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-01-2017-0003 |
| Date | 13 February 2017 |
| Published date | 13 February 2017 |
| Pages | 1-3 |
| Author | Bridget Penhale,Margaret Flynn |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Adult protection,Safeguarding,Sociology,Sociology of the family,Abuse |
Bridget Penhale and Margaret Flynn
Welcome to 2017 and to our first issue of the year. First we provide some recent news items
relating broadly to safeguarding issues that readers may find of interest.
Action plans are familiar to safeguarding practitioners. Can anyone remember what happened to
the action plan promised by former PM David Cameron in the wake of the Brexit associated
“spike”in hate crimes? Compassion for fleeing migrants has diminished and jostles with fearful
hostility and intolerance. We now know that America’s new leader is likely to govern, as he
campaigned and that hate may well constitute a key feature. Meanwhile, warlords thrive in Syria.
During December 2016 we learned that the NHS in England is continuing to send teenagers and
young adults to Scotland for treatment because it does not have enough treatment facilities[1]
and that “catastrophic consequences”are likely to result from tenacious austerity. Birmingham
city council’s chief executive has stated that the city no longer has a youth service, its children’s
centres have been dismantled and eligibility for social care is restricted to people with substantial
and critical support needs[2]; a recent Local Government Association briefing[3] stated:
The Government must recognise why social care matters and treat it as a national priority.
There needs to be an urgent and fundamental review of social care and health before next year’s
spring Budget. Local government leaders, who are responsible for social care in their local
community, must be part of that review. This is imperative to get a long-term, sustainable solution to
the social care crisis that the most vulnerable people in our society deserve.
It also needs to include action to properly fund social care with genuinely new government money.
This is now the only way to protect the servicescaring for our elderly and disabled people, which are at
breaking point and ensure they can enjoy dignified, healthy and independent lives, live in their own
community and stay out of hospital for longer.
Further casualties of the “do more with less”mantra are the recipients of personal budgets.
The Dunedin study –a research programme that has followed the progress of 1,000 children in
Dunedin frombirth (1972-1973) to midlife –hasdetermined that a small segment of thepopulation
accountsfor a disproportionate share of a widearray of public services. Thatis, “nearly 80 per cent
of adult economic burden can be attributed to just 20 per cent of the Study members […][the]
‘high cost’groupaccounted for 81 per cent of criminalconvictions, 66 per centof welfare benefits,
78 per cent of prescriptionfills and 40 per cent of excessobese kilograms”[4]. The studyunderlines
the long-term benefits of investment inthe early years. Such a shame that tenureof politicians so
often gets in the way of decision making for the long term.
A year after the review which revealed failings at Southern Health Trust, the Care Quality
Commission published “Learning Candour and Accountability”[5]. This highlights the treatment
of bereaved relatives of adults with mental health problems or learning disabilities whose deaths
were not adequately investigated. The CQC’s fact finding found that families had a poor
experience of NHS reviews; there were inconsistencies in terms of reporting people’s deaths to
service commissioners and other providers; investigations tend to result from serious incidents
and the criteria for undertaking these may vary; the quality of the investigations is poor;
and boards only receive limited information about investigations. The dissemination of learning
from such investigations is also reported as inadequate.
Fingers crossed, the practice of violent and abusive men being allowed to cross examine their
former partners in family court hearings will discontinue[6]. The Guardian’s investigation has
revealed that even men who have been the subject of restraining orders use litigant in person
access to continue their harassment.
DOI 10.1108/JAP-01-2017-0003 VOL. 19 NO. 1 2017, pp. 1-3, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
PAG E 1
Editorial
To continue reading
Request your trial