Safeguarding vulnerable adults
By Liz Lockhart
Nearly a year ago, in May 2011, Paul Burstow announced plans to strengthen the protection of vulnerable 
adults. Safeguarding Adults Boards were to become a legal requirement for all local authorities.
The responsibilities of these Safeguarding boards were to include a range of areas including serious incidents in hospitals and institutional abuse in care settings. They also covered cases of financial abuse and ‘scams’, bullying and victimisation.
It was hoped that vulnerable adults would be protected from this kind of abuse. But this week Mr. Burstow has raised concerns about how these Boards are functioning and the type of complaints which they are dealing with.
Today Safeguarding Adult Boards are being made compulsory. Most local authorities have already conformed to this requirement but it has been suggested that we are putting them on a legal footing. The need to differentiate between genuine safeguarding and issues of management, quality, safety and staff practice is vitally clear.
This week our Care Service Minister, Paul Burstow, voiced his concerns that ‘safeguarding’ has been widened to a ridiculous degree. During a speech to health and social care professionals he asked whether people are covering their own backs instead of taking responsibility.
Burstow said that there is an over-reliance on checklists, process and procedure, and added that people have been abdicating responsibility. He said ‘We need proper systems to report abuse. Those systems only work if they are used properly and the people running them do not become bogged down investigating cases that have nothing to do with protecting people from abuse.’
He added ‘This is about common sense, trusting front line professionals to use their judgement so that the most serious cases of abuse don’t get lost amongst cases that should never have been referred in the first place.’
Mr. Burstow suggests that we seem to have lost confidence in our own common sense and in the skills of our highly trained professionals. He then cited some examples which have been brought to his attention that he feels should have been sorted out through standard management processes and not to have been brought to ‘safeguarding’ levels.
The first example is that of a care assistant who fell asleep on one single occasion whilst working at night. This was reported as a safeguarding issue but should have been dealt with at management level.
The second example was that of a torn piece of carpet, again not an issue for safeguarding, he suggested.
The third example was that of The Department of Health being told about a service user being given a new care plan which included more variety in their diet. This was to be achieved by having several smaller meals daily. It was reported as a safeguarding issue because ‘not enough main meals’ were being provided.
A press release from the Department of Health suggests that the result of over-reporting on this level leads to paralysis of the local safeguarding system. Things that are clearly far beyond the realm of safeguarding are wasting countless hours on reporting and investigating them. Unfortunately some genuine cases are being missed.
