Area of Recording/ Standard

Guidance for Case Auditing and Recording Checks in Locality Teams

• Revised checks are to begin end of Nov 2013 and a review of how the process is working will take place in Nov 2014.
• Completed audits are kept electronically in the ‘All Localities’ network area for the area, under the ‘Admin’ section where only Heads of Service, Line Managers and Business Support have access.
• If required a report on the number/ cases audited recorded on ONE and Aspire for a given period can be run. On Aspire this can be done through Client Search, With Contact (tick Record Quality Checked) or on ONE through
• Any questions that arise linked to operational guidance, practice standards or the audit process itself should be raised with the relevant County Lead (or where across the board, the QA and Practice Standards Manager) for resolution.
• Useful reports on ONE are the Child Journey Report which can quickly show you all involvements over time - this is run via the child's record and is on the right hand side under reports. The other is the Communication Log Details Report, this will show you all communication logs on the child's records (by anyone since ONE recording started) is accessed via Analysis Reporting, CSS, All Services and then select and ensure you select WORD (bottom of drop down) in the report format.

Data Quality Checks

• An automatic error report will be sent to Business Support who will work with line managers/ practitioners to ensure these are actioned.

Line Manager Case Audits

• 3 caseauditsper 3 months to be undertaken by each line manager. This may cover the work of more than one person within the team so the list should be agreed between team line managers each month to avoid duplication and to ensure that cases picked over a period reflect work by a variety of practitioners.

• To identify records to be checked the line manager should first look to the Service Team Workload service area (on ONE) or Caseload (on Aspire) and choose a case from the caseloads. Alternatively use a client search with location/ contact (on Aspire) to identify those worked with in the previous month by the workers or run the Involvements List report for the last month (on ONE).

• Choice of case is down to the judgement of the manager but it is recommend over the course of a year a variety of cases should be chosen, some cases where the locality worker is lead professional, cases of differing lengths/ points, some recently closed cases and a variety of types of cases. Where possible clients not previously used should be chosen (unless a re-audit is suggested due to previous inadequate grading).

• It is also recommended that twicea year peer auditing sessions should be arranged within or across teams, areas or the county where a number of line managers would audit cases across each others teams together to allow an element of moderation/ sharing of good practice. This should be organised through by Area Business Support. Cases will be selected in advance to allow relevant paperwork to be brought to the audit.

• Once audited the Line Manager should record on ONE or Aspire that they have completed the audit as well as completing the template on the spreadsheet. On ONE this should be done by going into the relevant involvement/s on the child, choosing the category ‘Audit’ and then writing ‘Record Quality Checked’ in the summary and for this communication log taking out the caseworker and adding their own name (full details in Managers Operational Instructions or summary below). On Aspire, an interaction should be added with the interaction type of ‘Record Quality Checked’.

• Any actions required to improve the specific case grading of that case should be clearly outlined in the template. Any more generic learning can also be detailed here. Audits should be discussed with the relevant workers. Any actions highlighted in audits should be actioned promptly and the line manager should satisfy themselves that these have been completed by the next supervision at the latest and then signed off on the completed form.

• At the end of each audit the grading for each audit for each audit area and the total should be completed in the spreadsheet to provide a total for each month across teams and areas.

• The Locality Manager should also audit (or arrange for another designated person to audit) the cause for concern process. The report on ‘cause for concern’ on ONE/ Aspire should be run for the last month and the family file for 3 randomly selected reach relevant cause for concernsshould be undertaken and recorded on the relevant spreadsheet/ template in the shared area. The ONE report can be run via SSRS and the Aspire report is within View Reports area. The reports from ONE/Aspire should be shredded confidentially after use if printed.

Case Recording

• Case recording should be checked as part of the detailed discussion of cases within supervision (on the basis of the case recording guidance). This should be recorded as required on the supervision recording sheet. The practitioner should also record on a communication log (ONE)/ interaction (ASPIRE) (under the category Supervision) attached to their involvement that these cases and recording were discussed in supervision. The communication log summary screen/ start of interaction should be noted ‘SUPERVISION’. They will also record any key decisions agreed in the supervision (as per supervision guidance). As with other recording this needs to be done within 5 working days of the supervision or 24 hours for safeguarding.

Head of Service Audits

• 1caseper locality per year (2/3 to be done each per term)to be audited, varying types of case across the year. Cases will be selected in advance to allow relevant paperwork to be brought to the audit.

• Records should be chosen as above (but could also include cases not yet allocated to a worker) based on any concerns the Head of Service has through discussions with the Locality Manager based on results of Line Manager Audits or randomly as above.

• Once audited the Head of Service should record on ONE or Aspire that they have completed the audit as well as completing the template on the spreadsheet. On ONE this should be done by going into the relevant involvements on the child, choosing the category ‘Audit’ and then writing ‘Record Quality Checked’ in the summary and for this communication log taking out the caseworker and adding their own name. On Aspire, an interaction should be added with the interaction type of ‘Record Quality Checked’.

• Any actions highlighted in audits should be actioned promptly and the Head of Service should satisfy themselves that these have been completed via the Locality Manager and then signed off on the completed form.

• At the end of each audit the grading for each audit for each audit area and the total should be completed in the spreadsheet to provide a total for each month across teams and areas.

• A sample of the audits carried out by Locality Line Managers should also be checked for quality and sign off of actions.

• Heads of Service will also audit the cause for concern process.The report on ‘cause for concern’ on ONE/ Aspire should be run for the last term and random sampling of 3 family files in each locality being audited should be undertaken and recorded on the relevant spreadsheet/ template in the shared area. The ONE report can be run via SSRS and the Aspire report is within View Reports area. The reports from ONE/Aspire should be shredded confidentially after use if printed.

• Heads of Service will also audit the case prioritisation process. This will involve checking the priority matrix for each locality to ensure this is being completed and will take a sample of 1 case in each locality team which is or has been on the prioritisation list and check that there is corresponding recording on ONE/ Aspire regarding the prioritisation assessment summary. (This could be a case that is already being audited).

• Heads of Service will take a report to the EPS QA and Performance Board termly on the number of audits and the ratings overall and for each area of focus to feed into any development or guidance changes required. This may include areas of focus for partner agencies e.g. CAFs from certain areas/ organisations with particular quality issues. This report will be based on a termly discussion at Area or County Locality Managers meetings looking at themes, learning and a sample of audits together.

Thematic Case Audits

• Depending on issues arising up to 2 themed case audits maybe run a year, for example an additional grading may be added focusing on a specific area such as diversity, voice of the child, historical information.

Reporting

• A report on auditing can be run via ONE at or for supervision at ???
• A report on either can be run on Aspire,within client search you can search by worker or team (for team go to location) as below:

To add a note of audit on ONE

Communication log entries should be made to record the audit/case recording check by the Manager. Remember add a communication log via the involvement form, not a child record.

1. Choose Communication Log from the links panel on the right.

1. Click on New button

1. 2 . In Basic Details select Other from Type drop down list and click Continue.

1. Record Case recording check in the Summary box. Select category Audit from thedrop down list.

4. Scroll down to Panel 4 Subjects/From/To. Highlight the Caseworker and click on the Remove button.

5. Click on Add button

6. Person Enquiry window will open, search for yourself.

7. Ensure you have the correct person, you can check this by highlighting the record and clicking Details.

8. Click on Select and then OK

9. Click Save.

1. Click grey ‘X’ in top right hand corner to return to child record.

1

EXAMPLE OF AUDIT FORMS AND GRADING GUIDANCE – THE ACTUAL FORMS FOR

COMPLETION ARE WITHIN THE SPREADSHEET IN THE TEAM AREA

Locality/ Children’s Centre Case Auditing Gradings

• There is clear evidence of management oversight in relation to decision to accept/ reject and timely allocation
• Any relevant historical information has been recorded and incorporated in decision making
• Where the case has been subject to prioritisation there information on what other services have been provided in the meantime (as well as risk assessment/ review)

• There is good evidence of management oversight in relation to decision to accept/ reject and timelyallocation
• The background to referral has been clearly recorded
• Where the case has been subject to prioritisation there is evidence of review and risk assessment during this period

• There is some evidence of management oversight in relation todecision to accept/ reject and allocation
• Some background to referral has been recorded
• Some relevant historical information has been recorded
• The client and referrer have been contacted in a timely manner
• Where the case has been subject to prioritisation there is evidence of review during this period

• There is no evidence of management oversight in relation to allocation or decision to accept/ reject (in a timely manner)
• The background to referral has not been recorded
• There is no relevant historical information recorded
• The client and referrer have not been contactedin a timely manner
• Where the case has been subject to prioritisation there is no evidence of review during this period

• Ongoing assessment is of high quality, includes detailed and robust analysis, including all strengths, risks and needs
• Where there is conflict or difficulty including some relevant members of the household, creative solutions have been sought to include their views where possible
• Assessment provides good analysisregarding multi-agency context.
• Diversity and disability issues identified and appropriately addressed.

• Full assessment and good evidence of ongoing assessment
• Assessment clearly identifies strengths and areas of concern/ risk
• Assessment findings are fully analysed
• Assessment includes full multi-agency context
• Diversity and disability issues identified and considered

• Full assessment of relevant areas and/or gaps being filled through ongoing assessment
• Assessment identifies strengths and areas of concern
• Assessment findings are analysed
• Views of key members of the household have been sought where appropriate.
• Assessment includes some multi-agency context.
• Diversity and disability issues identified.
• If no CAF or equivalent (e.g. in case of statutory EWO referral or PSP for EIO) evidence of one being offered/ refused if appropriate and a level of assessment appropriate/ relevant to intervention undertaken (e.g. in case of GA predicted grades, barriers).

• Significant gaps in appropriate assessment and no ongoing assessment to fill these
• No identification of strengths and areas of concern
• No analysis of the assessment findings
• Does not include all relevant members of the household where appropriate
• No multi-agency context despite other agencies clearly being involved
• No evidence of diversity and disability issues having been considered

• Planned outcomes are SMART and it is clear how participants will know when they are achieved
• It is clear how the child/ family (as appropriate) are contributing to achieving the plan
• It is clear how other agencies are contributing to achieving the plan

• All aspects of the assessment can clearly be linked to a planned outcome in the plan
• Planned outcomes are SMART and are clearly outcomes rather than actions
• The child/ family (as appropriate) are involved in the planning
• Other relevant agencies are involved in the planning
• The lead professional has led the planning and used appropriate documentation

• Assessment has been used to inform plan.
• Planned outcomes are SMART although some may be more action than outcome focused
• The child/ family (as appropriate) are consulted regarding the planning
• Other relevant agencies are consulted in the planning
• There is a clearly identified lead professional

• No clear plan within a reasonable timescale
• Assessment not used to inform plan
• Planned outcomes are not SMART
• There is no evidence of involvement of the child/ family (as appropriate) in planning
• Other relevant agencies are not referenced in planning
• It is not clear who the lead professional is

• There is evidence that the review process has led to significant progress in the situation

• There is evidence that the reviews have led to changes in the plan/ interventions as appropriate to the situation/ new information
• Records of review meetings give good evidence of progress/ changes
• There is evidence that the child/ family (as appropriate) have contributed to their reviews
• There is evidence that relevant agencies have contributed to reviews

• The plan has been reviewed sufficiently frequently
• Records of review meetings do record some of the issues but progress/ changes are not sufficiently recorded/ analysed
• There is evidence that the child/ family (as appropriate) have been involved in reviews
• There is evidence that relevant agencies have attended in reviews
• Where a plan has come to an end or there has been a change in lead professional there is evidence of clear decision making/ communication

• The plan has not been reviewed regularly in line with guidance
• Records of review meetings are insufficiently detailed to demonstrate progress or review
• There is no evidence of involvement of the child/ family (as appropriate) in reviews
• Other relevant agencies are not referenced in reviews
• There is no evidence of clear decision making around closure or points of transfer of lead professional

• Key supervision decisions and in depth case discussions are recorded on ONE/ Aspire and show evidence of reflection and analysis of issues raised and a clear focus on the plan and required actions

• Key supervision decisions and in depth case discussions are recorded on ONE/ Aspire and show evidence of reflection and evaluation of work carried out
• There is clear evidence of management oversight in opening and closing recording

• Key supervision decisions and in depth case discussions are recorded on ONE/ Aspire but there is limited evidence of reflection or evaluation of work carried out
• There is some evidence of management oversight in opening and closing recording
• Any safeguarding issues have been appropriately recorded and actions detailed correctly

• Key supervision decisions are not recorded on ONE/ Aspire
• There is no evidence of management oversight
• There is no evidence of any safeguarding issues recorded being recognised as such and raised/ actioned appropriately

• Recording provides a coherent account of the issues, interventions and outcomes and provides a narrative for the story of the child/ young person/ family as appropriate

• Recording is clear, analytical and concise
• There is good information to support decision making and key decisions are clear
• If closed, there is a clear closure summary outlining outcomes and reason for closure
• The views of children and/or families as appropriate are well recorded

• Recording is up to date and follow up dates are acted upon
• Recording is sufficiently clear to understand the case with key points summarised
• If closed, there is a clear closure summary
• The views of children and/or families as appropriate are recorded

• It is clear where information comes from, whether it is fact or opinion and is suitable to share with the client

• Recording is out of date or has significant gaps
• Recording is unfocused and does not provide sufficiently clear information to understand the case
• There is no clear ending to the case recorded prior to closure or it appears the case should have been closed but has not been

• Have the young persons needs been identified?
• Were all options explored?
• Was the advice given accurate and impartial?
• Were action notes issued?
• Has participation been recorded accurately?
• Are the individual circumstances showing and are they current?
• Are the situations listed accurately – (there must always be a situation prior to NEET)?
• Is there evidence of use of the distance travelled tool (YPW)?
• Are personal notes appropriate and the provider recorded?

• Is there evidence of use of the distance travelled tool (FW) with the DTT box ticked and dated?
• Is there information relating to the distance travelled recording in the communication log?
• If the DTT has been completed have the outcomes been recorded?
• If the involvement is closed, has the DTT completed box been ticked and dated?

DCPO/ Head of Service Audit Check of Child Protection Files Template (Locality Teams/ Children’s Centres)