Safeguarding Adult Reviews: the experience of one Independent Author
| Date | 07 March 2019 |
| Pages | 27-31 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-10-2018-0024 |
| Published date | 07 March 2019 |
| Author | Pete Morgan |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Adult protection,Safeguarding,Sociology,Sociology of the family,Abuse |
Safeguarding Adult Reviews: the
experience of one Independent Author
Pete Morgan
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to consider the process of undertaking a Safeguarding
Adult Review (SAR) from the perspective of an Independent Author and from an agency participating in one
and to stimulate a debate on both the process and the culture of Safeguarding Adults Boards that
commission them.
Design/methodology/approach –The author drew solely on his own experience as an Independent
Author and member of an SAR Panel.
Findings –The finding of this paper is that Safeguarding Adults Board vary in their commissioning process
for SARs and their expectations of the role of Independent Author and the SAR Panel.
Research limitations/implications –The paper is drawn from the experience of the author and is
therefore subjective.
Practical implications –There are implications for the role of Independent Authors and the process by
which SARs are commissioned and managed.
Originality/value –The author is not aware of similar consideration of the experience of an Independent
Author or of an agency participating in a SAR.
Keywords Safeguarding, Care Act 2014, Safeguarding Adults Boards, Independent Authors,
Independent Chairs, Safeguarding Adult Reviews
Paper type Viewpoint
This paper is not a piece of research, it does not claim to be academically robust and it is not
based on a randomised selection of examples. It is an expression of my experience of
Safeguarding Adul t Reviews (SARs), pr incipally as an Inde pendent Author but als o as the
Independent Chair of the Safeguarding Panel of a housing and support charity. In the latter,
it is the experience of being reviewed as the, or one of the potential perpetrators of the
abuse/neglect and also being an agency that believes an SAR should have been
commissioned when one was not. It is therefore a subjective view, but in the absence, to
my knowledge, of any formal research in this area, I hope it will generate some discussion of the
purpose and process of SARs.
What is the extent of my experience of SARs that puts me in a position where I feel able to
comment from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance? I have authored or am in the
process of authoring nine SARs, I was a member of a review team that undertook a joint Serious
Case Review (SCR)/SAR, and I have been a member, I think, of an SAR Panel that oversaw the
completion of an SAR into the death of a customer of the above housing and support charity.
I say “I think”for reasons that will become clearer later.
It is my belief that any SAR should generate learning about the case in question –how
agencies did or did not work together to safeguard the adult with care and support needs,
how they did or did not involve their family and significant others in so doing, whether they
followed single and multi-agency policies and procedures appropriately and so forth. However, it
should also generate learning about how the SAR itself was commissioned, carried out, any
learning disseminated and changes in policy, procedure and practice implemented. It is this last
aspect of SARs that this paper will focus on; it will not consider the individual cases themselves or
the learning for agencies that arose from them. Received 17 October 2018
Accepted 30 October 2018
Pete Morgan is based at
P Morgan Consultancy
Services, Daventry, UK.
DOI 10.1108/JAP-10-2018-0024 VOL. 21 NO. 1 2019, pp. 27-31, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
PAG E 27
To continue reading
Request your trial