That is the stance taken by Jersey’s Safeguarding Partnership Board, which this week delivered its annual report for 2014 and list of priorities for this year.
- The States Police
- The Health Department
- Family Nursing and Home Care
- Childrens Services
- The Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service
- The Education Department
- Andium Homes
- The Probation and Prison Service
- The Honorary Police
- Ambulance Service
- The NSPCC
- Volunteer organisations[/breakout]
The board has oversight of the Island’s safeguarding measures and is charged with providing a co-ordinated approach to protection across the Island’s care agencies.
The organisation, which was launched in 2013, also provides adult safeguarding training and is responsible for commissioning any serious case reviews that are needed following an apparent failure in care procedures.
In her annual report, the SPB’s independent chairwoman, Glenys Johnston, said: ‘We know that the effectiveness of safeguarding is dependent on the quality and co-ordination of those professionals who are responsible for safeguarding children, young people, adults, families and carers, but it also depends on the support of politicians and the public. Safeguarding truly is everybody’s business.
‘The optimism I reported in my last annual report – an optimism in the people and professionals of Jersey to prioritise safeguarding – has proved to be well-placed.
With this continuing commitment, the coming year will see further developments and new initiatives, which I am confident will continue to make Jersey a safer place in which to live and thrive.’
The Safeguarding Partnership Board is ultimately overseen by Mrs Johnston but is broadly split between two sub groups –the Safeguarding Adults Board, which oversees agency measures for Islanders aged 18 and older, and the Safeguarding Children’s Board.
Both sections comprise senior representatives from key care and protection units in Jersey.
Together, these partner agencies provide a co-ordinated approach to the protection of a range of Islanders, families and carers.
Of the six priorities for 2015, Mrs Johnston picked four that the board considered most pressing.
The report states that having a designated child protection doctor – in the same way the Island has a designated nurse – would allow expert advice and consultation to be given to different agencies responsible for child and adult protection.
What does the SPB do?
While it is not responsible for delivering services directly, the SPB has oversight of safeguarding measures put in place in the Island.
- The creation of a Multi -Agency Safeguarding Hub to provide a single point of contact for all safeguarding children concerns.
- The Jersey Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements, which monitor high-risk sexual, violent and other dangerous offenders, was used.
- The Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference, which focuses on victims of domestic abuse and develops plans to support them, was used.
- A Sexual Assault Referral Centre, which provides specialist advice, was created.
- A review of early-help services was carried out.
- The SPB worked together to manage the risk of young people at risk of suicide or self-harm.
- The board developed a States Safe Recruitment Policy.
- A position for a designated nurse to provide advice and support for nursing staff was created.[/breakout]
It provides adult safeguarding training, meets regularly to co-ordinate different agencies’ work on specific cases, clarifies the needs and means for child and adult protection, monitors safeguarding systems and implements policies to promote the welfare of children and adults.
The group’s work can extend to investigating allegations made against people who work with children or adults, and they also publish guidance on best practice when it comes to protection.
They are also charged with monitoring all aspects of protection services, including complaints relating to agencies under the SPB umbrella.
Serious case reviews are commissioned by the board where abuse or neglect of an adult is known or suspected, when the individual has died or been seriously harmed, and when there is serious concern about the way in which agencies have worked together.
These reviews aim to discover what lessons can be learned and what changes can be made to improve safeguarding measures.
They are not designed to apportion blame where death or serious injury has occurred.
THIS part of the SPB’s work was highlighted this week with the publication of findings and recommendations of a serious case review which was launched following the death of ‘Mr H’ at a private care home in 2013.
The panel this week revealed that the man, who was in his 80s, had had antibiotics placed covertly in his food by care home staff because he refused to be treated.
However, this procedure was stopped when the Health Department’s Adult Safeguarding team questioned the legality of his treatment, which was being carried out without the man’s knowledge at the suggestion of a GP.
His medication was temporarily stopped, but Mr H died five days later from pneumonia.
At a briefing on the case, Mrs Johnston described how Mr H’s family had praised the care their relative, who was known to dislike doctors and medication, had received during his time at the home.
Jersey’s Medical Officer of Health, Dr Susan Turnbull, said that there was no way of knowing whether Mr H would have beaten pneumonia had he continued to be treated covertly.
Several changes have now been called for following the review. It has been suggested that:
*Mr H’s case be used in training across a number of healthcare and protection agencies in the Island.
Legislation behind Jersey’s codes of practice and policies relating to mental capacity be looked at.
The Hospital’s discharge plans for care home patients also informs the planning of their residential care programme.
Treatment administered by care homes be ‘explicitly associated’ with medical diagnoses.
HEALTH services should be totally transparent by admitting failures and publishing operation success rates to stop a repeat of the failures of Mid Staffs NHS Trust scandal where up to 1,200 died needlessly, says a legal health expert.
Peter Watkin Jones, a lawyer who specialises in public inquiries, took evidence in the Mid Staffs inquiry and co-wrote the subsequent report and recommendations.
He also played crucial roles in the Leveson and Harold Shipman inquiries.
Speaking to Health executives and clinicians in 2013 at the launch of the Safeguarding Children Partnership Board and the Safeguarding Adults Partnership Board, he said that his role had been to establish what had gone wrong at Mid Staffs, where between 400 and 1,200 died as a result of inadequate care.
His team uncovered a culture where a combination of pressure to meet targets, bullying and a feeling of isolation and disengagement led to uncaring behaviour and a toleration of bad performance in an atmosphere of denial with no external assessment.
The 290 recommendations in the Francis Report on the scandal included the need to foster a culture of total openness in which the success rates of operations were published alongside waiting lists.
The report also recommended that gagging orders barring departing staff from talking about their experiences should be outlawed and that health services owed patients a ‘duty of candour’.
That, he explained, meant telling them immediately if their treatment was going wrong or if there had been mistakes.
Mr Watkin Jones added that all people had a duty to promote safeguarding, including patients and their families.
‘People felt intimidated to raise issues with staff,’ he said.
‘People don’t like to complain in a safeguarding environment.’
