Safeguarding practice in England where access to an adult at risk is obstructed by a third party: findings from a survey

Date11 December 2017
Pages323-332
Published date11 December 2017
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-06-2017-0027
AuthorJill Manthorpe,Martin Stevens,Stephen Martineau,Caroline Norrie
Subject MatterHealth & social care,Vulnerable groups,Adult protection,Safeguarding,Sociology,Sociology of the family,Abuse
Safeguarding practice in England where
access to an adult at risk is obstructed by
a third party: findings from a survey
Jill Manthorpe, Martin Stevens, Stephen Martineau and Caroline Norrie
Abstract
Purpose Being able to speak in private to an adult about whom there is a safeguarding concern is central to
English local authoritiesduty under the Care Act 2014 to make enquiries in such cases. While there has been
an on-going debate about whether social workers or others should have new powers to effect these
enquiries, it has been unclear how common obstructive behaviour by third parties is and how often this
causes serious problems or is unresolved. The purpose of this paper is to address this knowledge gap.
Design/methodology/approach A survey of local authority adult safeguarding managers was conducted
in 2016 and interviews were undertaken with managers and social workers in three local authorities.
Data were analysed descriptively.
Findings Estimates of numbers and frequency of cases of obstruction varied widely. Most survey
respondents and interview participants described situations where there had been some problems in
accessing an adult at risk. Those that were serious and long-standing problems of access were few in
number, but were time consuming and often distressing for the professionals involved.
Research limitations/implications Further survey research on the prevalence of obstructivebehaviour of
third parties may not command greater response rates unless there is a specific policy proposal or a case that
has hit the headlines. Other forms of data collection and reporting may be worth considering. Interview data
likewise potentially suffer from problems of recall and definition.
Practical implications At times professionals will hear of, or encounter, difficulties in accessing an adult at
risk about whom there is concern. Support from supervisors and managers is needed by practitioners as
such cases can be distressing. Localities may wish to collect and reflect upon such cases so that there is
learning from practice about possible resolution and outcomes.
Social implications There is no evidence of large numbers of cases where access is denied or very
difficult. Those cases where there are problems are memorable to practitioners. Small numbers of cases,
however, do not necessarily mean that the problem of gaining access is insignificant.
Originality/value This study addressed a question which is topical in England and provides evidence
about the frequency of the problem of gaining access to adults at risk. There has been no comparable study
in England.
Keywords Access, Adult safeguarding, Law, Adults at risk, Power of entry, Hindering
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
This paper reports and discusses the findings of a study that sought to examine current
safeguarding practice in England where access to an adult at risk is obstructed by a third party.
We refer to such obstructive behaviour as hindering. Our study focussed on hindering of
access to adults at risk and what helps practitioners in such cases. Our study took place after the
implementation of the Care Act 2014 in England and uses the terminology of the Care Act 2014
to refer to adults with care and support needs where there is cause to suspect they are also
experiencing or at risk of abuse/neglects 42(1) and are not able to protect themselves. It explored
the nature and frequency of these situations only in respect of adults who are thought to have
decision-making capacity, using the terminology of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, because there
Received 26 June 2017
Revised 27 September 2017
2 October 2017
Accepted 3 October 2017
The authors are most grateful to all
those who completed the survey
and gave up their time to be
interviewed. The authors thank
members of the study advisory
group and the Unitsuserand
carer advisory group for their
assistance and advice. This study
was commissioned by the
Department of Healths Policy
Research Programme. The views
expressed in this paper are those
of the authors alone and should
not be interpreted as necessarily
those of the Department of Health,
the NIHR or the NHS.
Jill Manthorpe is a Professor,
Martin Stevens is a Senior
Research Fellow,
Stephen Martineau is a
Research Associate and
Caroline Norrie is a Research
Fellow, all at Social Care
Workforce Research Unit,
Kings College London,
London, UK.
DOI 10.1108/JAP-06-2017-0027 VOL. 19 NO. 6 2017, pp. 323-332, © Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
PAG E 32 3

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT