Making connections: a multi-disciplinary analysis of domestic homicide, mental health homicide and adult practice reviews
| Date | 07 March 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-07-2018-0015 |
| Pages | 16-26 |
| Published date | 07 March 2019 |
| Author | Amanda Lea Robinson,Alyson Rees,Roxanna Dehaghani |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Adult protection,Safeguarding,Sociology,Sociology of the family,Abuse |
Making connections: a multi-disciplinary
analysis of domestic homicide, mental
health homicide and adult practice reviews
Amanda Lea Robinson, Alyson Rees and Roxanna Dehaghani
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to “read across”a sample of domestic homicide reviews (DHRs),
mentalhealth homicide reviews (MHHRs)and adult practice reviews(APR) to identify the cross-cuttingthemes.
Design/methodology/approach –The study involved a qualitative comparative analysis of 20 Welsh
reviews: 10 DHRs, 6 APRs and 4 MHHRs. Each review was triple coded by a multi-disciplinary team of
researchers (representing criminology, social work and law).
Findings –Five overarching themes were identified from this diverse sample of cases: crossing boundaries,
including transitions between services and geographical boundaries; hoodwinking, where there was
manipulation of the presentation of self; faulty assessment, which was not always holistic and only based on
certain aspects of behaviour; tunnel vision, resulting from the initial underpinning narrative rarely being
challenged; and knowledge, with certain types being privileged over others, especially professional over that
of families and para-professionals.
Research limitations/implications –Further research into death reviews should adopt a comparative,
multi-disciplinary approach.
Practical implications –The research highlights the possibility for duplication across the different types of
reviews. Further, it suggests that review processes could be streamlined.
Originality/value –Five cross-cutting theme sh ave been developed through the very first stud y “reading
across”three types of reviews (DHR s, APRs and MHHRs). Findin gs suggest the need for stre amlining
review processes and hi ghlight the importanc e of adopting a multi-di sciplinary perspecti ve when
researching death reviews.
Keywords Mental health, Safeguarding, Domestic violence, Vulnerable adults, Homicide, Death reviews
Paper type Research paper
Background
Both the volume and type of death reviews taking place in the UK have grown significantly since
the first child death scandal of Dennis O’Neill who was “boarded out”[1] in 1945 (Hopkins, 2007)
and the subsequent Monckton four day inquiry and report (Home Office, 1945). The introduction
of new statutory requirements in the 1990s and 2000s has greatly contributed to an
“inquiry culture”that has prompted death reviews becoming “much more a feature of public life”
(Nash and Williams, 2008, p. 134). Consequently, they routinely feature in the professions
of many in both statutory and non-statutory agencies (e.g. via training which draws from reviews,
or submitting evidence or otherwise participating in an official inquiry).
The aim of conducting a review is to “generate professional and organisational learning and
promote improvementin future inter-agencyadult protection practice”(WelshGovernment, 2016).
For example, domestic homicide reviews (DHRs)[2], mental health homicide reviews (MHHR)[3]
and adultpractice reviews (APR)[4]are all underpinned by a desireto “learn the lessons”from tragic
and potentially avoidable deaths. Indeed, the expectation that learning must follow from these
events means that some will trigger multiple reviews under current statutory obligations.
Received 18 July 2018
Revised 4 October 2018
23 October 2018
Accepted 30 October 2018
Amanda Lea Robinson and
Alyson Rees are both based at
the School of Social Sciences,
Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Roxanna Dehaghani is based at
the School of Law and Politics,
Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
PAG E 16
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
VOL. 21 NO. 1 2019, pp. 16-26, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203 DOI 10.1108/JAP-07-2018-0015
To continue reading
Request your trial