Agenda item

Derek Benson explained that this was the first time he had presented the Adults Safeguarding Annual Report. Kathy McAteer had started the work at the beginning of the year being reported.

An error had been pointed out by Jonathan Sutton. There was a difference between the criteria for conducting a Safeguarding Adult Review (SAR) set out in the Safeguarding Adult Review Protocol (version 6) published on the Safeguarding website and the Draft Annual Report. The Protocol stated “SABs are free to arrange for a SAR in any other situations involving an adult in its area with needs for care and support” whereas the draft report did not include this sentence. It was agreed that the protocols would be looked at to ensure the information was correct in different places.

Progress had been made through the year; they had concentrated on raising awareness of Adult Safeguarding and listening to those affected; this was partly achieved with the creation of an advocacy group. The priorities of the Board were Making Safeguarding Personal, the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty. They also aimed to work more closely with the Children's Board and Community Safety Partnerships.

As with the Children's Board there was an underspend on the Budget – but it would be ensured that the money was put to good use and not lost.

Some good work had been achieved, however it was recognised that more could be done.

During the discussion the following points were made:

·       It was explained that the figure of nine referrals could not be considered as the right or wrong amount as it depended on the individual referring them. Different Safeguarding Boards had different numbers. Worcestershire tended to have more referrals and SARs than other areas who may carry out more internal or single agency reviews

·       Each referral was considered by a sub-group to see if it met the criteria for a review. The case would then be referred to the Chairman of the Safeguarding Board who would review the recommendations and make the final decision as to whether a SAR was carried out. Details of why a referral did not meet the criteria could be provided if needed

·       The Director of Children's Services felt it was positive that both the Safeguarding Boards for Adults and for Children had the same Chairman. She agreed that embedding the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) was important but it was difficult to embed, and clarity was needed about how 16/17 year olds were dealt with. She felt that 'making things personal' was a joy of the care Act

·       Training would be provided for the Young Adults Team around the MCA and the Children Act

·       Following the death of a homeless person in Worcester, Healthwatch were looking at vulnerable adults, the criteria for Safeguarding Adults Reviews, operators in Care and Self neglect. When the report was complete it would be shared with the Council. Worcester District had also commissioned an independent review into the death of the same individual

·       Following Reviews The Safeguarding Board considered how it would be best to feedback learning and a new website was being created. Pressures were increasing on all agencies and it was recognised how important it was to work together and share information. Learning events to share good practice were based on safeguarding reviews. The focus was presently on domestic abuse and domiciliary care and sharing learning.

RESOLVED that the Health and Well-being Board considered any cross cutting themes and agreed to refer issues either directly to the Safeguarding Board or though the next Joint Cross cutting issues meeting to be held between the Chairs of the four Boards.