Surrey Wide CCG Safeguarding Children Team
Surrey Wide CCG Safeguarding Children TeamSafeguarding Children & Young PeopleLearning from Serious Case Reviews
This presentation presents information from selected recent Surrey Serious Case reviews.
Surrey Wide CCG Safeguarding Children TeamIntroduction
Surrey Wide CCG Safeguarding Children TeamEstablish what lessons are to be learned from the case about the way in which local professionals and organisations work individually and together to safeguard and promote the welfare of children;
Identify clearly what those lessons are both within and between agencies, how and within what timescales they will be acted on, and what is expected to change as a result; and
Improve intra- and inter-agency working to better safeguard and promote the welfare of children.Purpose of a Serious Case ReviewSerious Case Reviews are not inquiries into how a child dies or who is to blame. These are matters for coroners and for criminal courts.
Discuss impact on staff who are part of the process, need for support, updated regularly on progress
Regulation 5 (1) (e) and (2) of the LSCB RegulationsSets out an LSCBs function in relation to serious casereviews, namely:
Regulation (1) (e) undertaking reviews of serious cases and advising the authority and their Board partners on lessons to be learned.
Surrey Wide CCG Safeguarding Children TeamSerious Case Reviews LSCB Regulations 2006Statutory requirement and the legal framework for undertaking SCRs4(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1) (e) a serious case is one where:(a) abuse or neglect of a child is known or suspected; and (b) either (i) the child has died; or (ii) the child has been seriously harmed and there is cause for concern as to the way in which the authority, their Board partners or other relevant persons have worked together to safeguard the child.
Surrey Wide CCG Safeguarding Children TeamSerious Case Reviews LSCB Regulations 2006Expand on Working Together 2015 and further definition of seriously harmedCame from recommendation made by Independent panel of experts5Young Person Hiers 2013 - age 14: suicide
Child S, 2011 baby (8 weeks): head and other injuries
Child X, 2012 baby (4 weeks): bruising and multiple injuries
Surrey Wide CCG Safeguarding Children TeamSurrey Serious Case Reviews6Came to the UK in 2010 and lived in a bedsit in a shared house with his mother
Started school in year 7, limited English initially but was considered to be progressing well
Mother returned to China in 2013 to settle some family affairs. Young Person Hiers did not want to return with her so stayed in the UK with arrangements made for the landlord and other residents to keep an eye on him. Mother provided him with adequate food and money. School were unaware of this arrangement
Surrey police were contacted by the NSPCC to say that the young person had been left home alone. Police attended home address and carried out welfare checks
on 23rd April Surrey police received a telephone call from the ambulance service to inform them that the young person had been pronounced dead at the home address
Surrey Wide CCG Safeguarding Children TeamYoung Person Hiers 7
Surrey Wide CCG Safeguarding Children TeamYoung Person Hiers- Practice Issues that Emerged
Surrey Wide CCG Safeguarding Children TeamRead through the case study of Child S.
In pairs/groups, list what you think are the main lessons that emerged from this SCR?
Surrey Wide CCG Safeguarding Children TeamInadequate recognition by a number of professionals of the significance of interacting risk factors including: failure to engage with serviceslack of antenatal caresubstance misusedomestic violenceambiguous feelings towards two pregnancies and a troubled parental history as a child
Child S practice issues that emerged
Surrey Wide CCG Safeguarding Children TeamPractitioners did not fully appreciate the implications of parental misuse of alcohol and take action to reduce risk to the children.
Practitioners in Childrens Social Care and Health did not recognise the significance of bruising/injuries in non-mobile babies.
Practitioners did not ensure that when a child on a Child Protection Plan sustains an injury this is examined by a paediatrician.
Accessing mothers historical records presented challenges to the review team and this lack of access also impacted on practitioners
Child S practice issues (continued)Practitioners did not fully appreciate the implications of parental misuse of alcohol and take action to reduce risk to the children.Practitioners in Childrens Social Care and Health did not recognise the significance of bruising/injuries in non-mobile babies.This case has features similar to those found in previous serious case reviews in: engaging with fathers, recognising the significance of family history, risk assessment in situations of domestic violence, substance misuse and working with resistant families.Working with resistant families requires practitioners to have highly developed interpersonal skills supported by effective supervision which addresses the emotional impact of such work .When the case was closed to Children's Social Care there were missed opportunities for a more structured approach to the assessments undertaken and help given to the family.
Surrey Wide CCG Safeguarding Children TeamChild X Case SynopsisThe baby aged just 4 weeks lived with her young parents aged 18 and 20 years
There were no obvious warning factors prior to birth; but following the review it emerged that the mother and her family were known to children services
The mother had declined universal services CAF, parent education and support with housing and finance. School nursing records suggest mother may have learning difficulties
Little was known about the father
Maternity inform childrens services after the mother is ejected from parental home. However, there was confusion whether this was a referral or information sharing, lead to childrens services taking no further action
Surrey Wide CCG Safeguarding Children TeamChild X (continued)In the first 3 weeks of the babys life professionals had noted several bruises on different parts of the body and bilateral conjunctival haemorrhages
The baby was seen by 5 different health disciplines and no one considered the bruising to be caused by abuse. The injuries were believed to have a medical cause and no one challenged this hypothesis
The baby was admitted to hospital by ambulance following a seizure and a medical cause prevailed. Following transfer to a regional unit and following further medical investigation the baby was found to have suffered serious injuries including, sub-dural haematoma, leg & foot fractures and multiple rib fractures
Both parents have been convicted and are serving custodial sentences
Surrey Wide CCG Safeguarding Children TeamPractice issues that emergedFailure to follow child protection procedures due to lack of awareness of procedures, including bruising protocol
No consultation with safeguarding leads or safeguarding supervisors
Lack of effective communication & information sharing between all professionals involved which may have supported the prevailing hypothesis
Poor recording keeping. Poor recording of facts, no body map of bruises, incorrect entries
Significant administration weaknesses. Delay in transferring records, failure to send information in a timely fashion, incorrect information sent. Key information between health visitors was either not sent, or not received
Surrey Wide CCG Safeguarding Children TeamPractice issues that emerged (continued)Lack of consistent involvement by the same professional in all areas of the babys care
Overwhelming professional tide of optimism leading to rigid mind set and flawed professional judgement about the parents shifted the focus away from the child
Lack of professional challenge either to parents or to other professional colleaguesExpand on the rule of optimism, what this means. Dingwall et al
Commonly identified in SCRs (Brandon)
Failure to revise judgements. One of the common problematic tendencies in human cognition is our failure to review judgements and plans once we have formed a view on what is going on, we often fail to notice or to dismiss evidence that challenges that picture. (Fish, Munro & Bairstow 09). Stop, look and listen, and look again Professional curiosity15
Recognising NeglectIf time permits could discuss similarities from other SCRsChild Y, 2013 baby (6 weeks): bruising and head injuries, neglect inter-relating risk factors, DA, parental substance misuse, criminalityU&V filicide suicideJ&K filicide Q drowning, professionals not recognising neglect issues and inter-relating risk factors, DA, depression, criminality
Many of the SCRs showed professionals focused on parental needs diverting attention away from the needs of children. Often not seen, or their wishes and feelings not heard
Could expand on step down/ step up process. Need for professional challenge and escalation process if needed16
Surrey Wide CCG Safeguarding Children TeamRecommendations for practiceRecommendations therefore aim to improve:Assessment & recognition of risk:Improving risk assessment, analysis and management of risk, use of specific risk assessment tools
Improved use of specific assessments tools, alcohol drug misuse, DA, CSE neglect assessment tools graded care profile. Mental health
Improved use of access to historical records
Effective use of