Solihull Local Safeguarding Children Board
Multi-Agency Case Audit Report
2016/17
Table 1. LSCB Multi-Agency Case Audit: Executive summary2015/2016 and 2016/2017 Performance Comparison
2015/2016 / 2016/2017
Areas of development / Areas improving / Areas for continued development
Improvements in record keeping and the logistics of multi-agency meetings / There has been an improvement in the involvement of the right agencies in multi-agency meetings. Practitioners are appropriately engaged in these meetings and understand the information sharing protocols.
The receipt of CP minutes has improved. / To continue to ensure that the right agencies are involvedin multi-agency meeting planning; including preparing reports or being invited to attend.
Consistency in record keeping and minutes of all meetings is needed; in particular core groups.
Timeliness and responsiveness of feedback from referrals to Children’s Social Work Services / The receipt of feedback from referrals has improved; where feedback has not been received practitioners take action to address this. / Continued progress in the receipt of feedback from referrals.
Continued emphasis on raising awareness of the thresholds guidance and using this in practice / Practitioners have a good knowledge of the thresholds guidance, know how to make referrals and where to go to seek advice for referrals. / Continued use of the thresholds guidance to support referrals.
The position of agencies in gaining consent for referrals needs to be clarified / Most practitioners understand the need to obtain consent. Some individual gaps seen. / The needs to be clarity across all agencies about the requirements to obtain consent.
Developmental work to consistently draw out the voice of the child / There is progress in capturing the voice of the child and areas of good practice are identified in terms of the practitioner considering what life is like for the child. / Continuous improvements are needed in gathering the child’s wishes and feelings and there are challenges for some agencies that do not have direct contact with the child.
Continued work around interventions and the impact of interventions on the child / Practitioners recognise case deterioration, parental non-compliance or disguised compliance, and take action to address this. / Continued work is needed in terms of SMART planning, contingency planning and the continual re-assessment of interventions to have a positive impact on the child.
Formal supervision sessions need to be embedded in all agencies.
Schools did not have formal supervision arrangements. / All agencies have formal supervision, and there is progress in keeping the child central to all decision making activity within the supervision process.
Schools developing supervision policy. / There could be improvements in the frequency of supervision sessions; the audit highlighted that sometimes supervision does not take place as often as planned. Schools supervision policy disseminated to school.
NOT AUDITED FOR 2015/2016 / Further promotion of the LSCB Dispute Resolution Procedure to embed this in practice.
Introduction
Under section 14 of the Children Act 2004, LSCBs have statutory objectives and functions. These are –
(a)to co-ordinate what is done by each person or body represented on the Board for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in the area of the authority by which it is established; and
(b)to ensure the effectiveness of what is being done by each such person or body for those purposes.
This report relates to objective (b) and the multi-agency case audit conducted by the LSCB. The multi-agency case forms a part of the LSCB Learning and Improvement Framework, and is one of the means through which the LSCB gathers evidence to inform learning and improve outcomes for children.
This audit was undertaken by the Case Audit Sub-Group of the LSCB. Membership of the sub-group includes professionals from the Solihull Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG), Heart of England Foundation Trust (HEFT), Early Years, Solihull MBC Children’s Services, SIAS, West Midlands Police, Solihull Community Housing (SCH), The Voluntary Sector, Schools, and the Community Rehabilitation Company. Following the establishment of SMBC Engage, professionals from this service were incorporated into the membership of the Case Audit sub-group for the 2016/17 audit cycle.
The multi-agency case audit is a one year cycle which aims to provide information from practice to inform the LSCB strategic priorities and planning for the coming year. Two full cycles have now been completed, enabling comparisons to be made between the performance in each one. The audit cycle is divided into 10 key steps to be delivered on within the 12 month period. The case audit is confined to the examination of number of selected cases using agreed criteria, and the audit tool has been designed to offer an interactive and dynamic approach to auditing which has immediate resonance for partners and produces a viable end product to inform the LSCB on required improvements.
The multi-agency case audit informs the LSCB and partners on practice relating to the LSCB priority areas for 2016/17. These are –
- To support the delivery of early help services
- To promote positive practice on neglect
- To help children at risk of child sexual exploitation
Cases were selected to support learning in relation to the following agreed key lines of enquiry;
KLOE 1: What is the quality of information sharing including core group work, MASE, early help and other appropriate multi-agency meetings?
KLOE 2: Do practitioners have to knowledge to apply correctly the thresholds and referral processes to support effective and accountable practice?
KLOE 3: Is it evident that the voice of the child has been heard?
KLOE 4: Are interventions working effectively to improve outcomes for the child/ren?
KLOE 5: Is supervision/management support used to aid reflective practice and to provide challenge to make a positive difference for the child?
KLOE 6: Are practitioners aware of the LSCB dispute resolution procedures and are these used effectively?
Aims and Objectives of Case Audit
Aims
To contribute to the LSCB’s statutory function to ensure the effectiveness of what is being done by each person or body represented on the Board for the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in the local area. The aim of the case audit is to establish to extent to which the LSCB is effective in supporting partners to continually improve practice in safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.
Objectives
At the end of the case audit cycle for 2016/17, the LSCB will have established information about practice in relation to children receiving services because they need Early Help, Child Protection and/or are at risk of sexual exploitation and/or are living with:
- Domestic Abuse
- A parent with mental health problems
- Parental substance abuse
This information will be used to improve practice and outcomes for children.
Methodology
The methodology used for 2015/2016 was refined and adapted using the auditors experience and to help clarify performance points. Each of the agencies represented in the Case Audit sub-group carried out an audit and delivered a presentation on their performance to a multi-agency audience at a learning event. In the 2015/16 audit cycle, a total of 11 cases were audited. For the 2016/17 case audit cycle this was increased, and total of 24 cases were audited, with 8 cases covering the LSCB priority areas of early help, neglect, and child sexual exploitation.
In the 2015/16 audit cycle it was recognised that as an adult focussed service the Community Rehabilitation Company had involvement in few of the selected cases. Therefore, a separate selection of 6 cases was produced for probation to ensure that service users had children who were known to the local authority.
The key lines of enquiry were agreed upon by the Case Audit sub-group and were phrased as questions that the LSCB should be asking about practice. The key lines of enquiry have been informed by national experience and local serious case reviews; key lines of enquiry 1-5 have remained unchanged from the 2015/16 audit cycle. For 2016/17 audit cycle, a further KLOE (6) has been added in relation to the LSCB dispute resolution procedure. Recent serious case reviews have identified that there is not a clear procedure for escalating cases when there is a professional disagreement. As a result, the LSCB with the help of practitioners have designed a dispute resolution procedure which helps to provide practitioners with the confidence to pursue professional challenge and escalate cases where there are disagreements.
For each key line of enquiry, expected standards of performance were developed, and auditors were asked to review the cases which they had knowledge and/or involvement in against these standards. The use of key lines of enquiry divided into standards ensured that the audit process retained a clear focus in relation to the LSCB priorities. A breakdown of KLOEs and standards can be found in the Case Audit Toolkit 2016/17 which is included as Appendix 3 in this report.
Managers from each of the agencies included in the Case Audit sub-group conducted the audits, and their ‘auditors’ were encouraged to include the practitioners who worked on the individual cases in the audit process.
In addition to completing detailed audits, each agency involved was required to prepare a presentation on their audit findings, and deliver this at a practitioner-led learning event. The purpose of the learning event was to pull together the findings of the agencies which conducted audits. Each agency was provided with a standard template for their presentation which included a summary of standards met or exceeded, standards unmet and why, how the specific agency will improve in house safeguarding, and how can partnership working be improved. A summary of the learning event is included as Appendix 1 and a summary of findings from presentations is included as Appendix 2.
Following the presentations, representatives of each agency who had attended the learning event were asked to complete a group analysis of each of the KLOEs in a ‘Signs of Safety’ format. They were asked to consider ‘what are we doing well?’, ‘what are we worried about?’, and ‘what needs to happen?’ in relation to the 6 KLOEs. The aim of this exercise was for practitioners to collate and summarise the findings from the multi-agency case audit. A copy of this group work is included in Appendix 3.
Future Learning and Recommendations for the Case Audit Methodology
Constraints
In some cases, agencies responded ‘not applicable’ to particular standards that did not apply to the work of their agency, or when particular features were not present in certain cases. Where these responses were received, this information was not recorded and therefore the data produced for this report does not always reflect the total response to all standards from all agencies. As a recommendation from the previous audit cycle, an attempt was made to devise standards that limited the possibility of ‘non applicable’ responses; however, more work may be needed in this area and should be considered for the 2017/18 audit cycle.
The Learning Event
Although an additional agency was incorporated into the Case Audit sub-group for the 2016/17 cycle, the learning event was similarly attended to the previous year’s event; attendance increased from 22 to 25. All 11 agencies were represented at the event; however, 4 agencies were only represented by 1 practitioner or manager per agency. Attendance from a wider cohort of practitioners and managers from these agencies would enrich the debate, inform the analysis, and mostly importantly ensure that key learning is disseminated further. The learning event was also extended to a whole day for the 2016/17 audit cycle, which although allowed for more in depth discussion and reflection, may have impacted on availability and capacity to attend the event. The importance of good attendance at the learning event needs to be communicated to managers.
KLOE 6
Some practitioners and managers expressed the view that the inclusion of KLOE 6 to measure agency performance was confused becauseof the recent publication of the dispute resolution procedure which was not widely disseminated or embedded in practice. Unfamiliarity with the new dispute resolution procedure was reflected in the findings, with a low percentage of standards met for this KLOE. Since then the LSCB has carried out a series of briefing sessions to ensure practitioners are aware of a range of practice tools, including the dispute resolution procedure; as such, it is anticipated that there will be an improvement next year.
Summary of Findings
KLOE 1: What is the quality of information sharing including core group work, MASE, early help and other appropriate multi-agency meetings?
Across all audits, practitioners demonstrated that there were areas of good practice in relation to the quality of information sharing and other appropriate multi-agency meetings. In 88% of audits, auditors considered that the relevant partners were involved and appropriately engaged, and in 94% of audits, the practitioner could demonstrate that they understood the information sharing protocols. Standard 4 – “There is evidence that a record of the meeting has been kept…and these have been communicated to partners” – was met in 74% of audits.It was noted at the event that receipt of Child Protection Conference minutes has improved in the last 12 months. However, the audit highlighted that improvements need to be made in the recording of core group meetings and communication of core group minutes to partners.
KLOE 2: Do practitioners have the knowledge to apply correctly the thresholds and referral processes to support effective and accountable practice?
The current audit has shown that the above has improved and identified that there needs to be continued work in this area to ensure that there is clarity across all agencies.The audit has shown that there are areas of good practice in understanding referral processes. The audit demonstrated that practitioners are confident in making referrals and seeking advice if necessary. Across 96% of audits, auditors responded that practitioners were aware of how to make appropriate referrals, and across 93% of audits practitioners were aware of where to go to seek advice regarding a referral.
A good awareness and knowledge of the thresholds guidance was evidenced; across 86% of audits this standard was met or exceeded. The audit reflected that there was some uncertainty in gaining consent for referrals in some agencies. In 83% of audits, practitioners were clear about the requirement to obtain consent.In terms of receiving feedback for referrals, there was an improvement from the previous audit cycle. Across 84% of audits, feedback had been received where a referral had been made; when feedback had not been received, across 90% of audits the practitioner had taken action to pursue this.
KLOE 3: Is it evident that the voice of the child has been heard?
The current audit has shown that continued improvements are needed in these areas. Good practice has been identified in terms of the practitioner considering what life is like for the child; with auditors responding to this standard as met or exceeded across 88% of audits. However, improvements could be made in gathering the child’s wishes and feelings. Challenges were identified in terms of some agencies not having direct contact with the child.
In 78% of audits, it was reported that diversity and disability are appropriately identified, understood and recorded. The case audit group agreed that the methodology in the next cycle should be clear about what was recorded and what was identified and understood as it is difficult to differentiate this.
KLOE 4: Are interventions working effectively to improve outcomes for the child/ren?
The current audit has shown that improvements need to be made in the effectiveness of interventions. Across 54% of audits, auditors responded that the intervention plan had been produced in line with SMART principles including a contingency plan. Improvements were also identified in terms of interventions being continually assessed in order to have a positive impact on the child; continual assessment of intervention plans was evidenced in 69% of audits.
The audit demonstrated that in cases where deterioration, parental non-compliance or disguised compliance was recognised, practitioners are effective at taking action to address this. Across 82% of audits where deterioration was recognised, auditors responded that practitioners had taken the appropriate action, and across 90% of audits where parental non-compliance was recognised, auditors responded that the appropriate action was taken to address this.
KLOE 5: Is supervision/management support used to aid reflective practice and to provide challenge to make a positive difference for the child?
The audit has provided evidence of good practice in relation to supervision aiding reflective practice and providing challenge. Across 92% of audits the child was central to all decision making activity within supervision, and across 90% of audits practitioners viewed supervision as an opportunity to reflect, gain support, and receive professional challenge, and to help them make a positive difference for the child. There could be improvements in the frequency of supervision sessions; the audit highlighted that sometimes supervision does not take place as often as planned.