Agenda item

This item is a presentation supported by the Adult Safeguarding annual report. The presentation provides an overview of the service, performance analysis and the department’s priorities for 2014/15.

Phil Porter introduced the presentation explaining that safeguarding adults  did not have the same legislative framework as children social services did. The assumption was that those over the age of 18 were able to make decisions for themselves. Therefore the Council worked to safeguard all vulnerable adults against significant harm or exploitation.

Members were then informed that although safeguarding adults was everyone’s responsibility, Brent Safeguarding Adults Board and the Adult Safeguarding operational team had specific responsibility for safeguarding adults. The operational team were focussed on outcomes and like Children’s Social Services they tried to ensure that the person was at the centre of the process and the team’s first priority was to ensure that the person was safe. The team consisted of a range of professionals including social workers, a previous police officer and a nurse.  Adult Safeguarding did not have a legislative framework but was framed by ‘No Secrets’ guidance and Pan London Safeguarding Procedures.

Phil Porter detailed the different types of Safeguarding Adults investigations including Office of the Public Guardian Matters which took place when a vulnerable adult whose money was managed by a friend of relative through a Power of Attornery was financially abused. In regards to investigations against an individual person who were not employed to provide services, the Safeguarding Adults Operational Team were able to investigate and determine their outcome on a balance of probabilities which was a less stringent burden of proof than the police needed to investigate.

In regards to the investigations that Safeguarding Adults Operation Team carried out they did take, on average, longer to complete than the 25 days target. However Brent was getting better at ensuring that all investigations had a conclusive outcome rather than being deemed ‘Not Determined /Inconclusive’. Alerts to the team had almost doubled since 2010 yet the number of referrals had stayed the same. This was encouraging as it meant that more people were aware of vulnerable adults and were reporting instances.

Phil Porter concluded his presentation by informing members that Adult Safeguarding had two priorities for 2014. The first was to reduce financial abuse, as a significant proportion of it could be avoided. The second was to reduce the number of pressure ulcer incidents as again, in a number of instances, they were avoidable.

Members discussed the presentation and raised a number of queries. They questioned what the budget was for delivering the Adult Social Services safeguarding adults priorities and how they would quantify the savings they made by achieving these priorities. Members also sought clarification as to who regulated private care homes and ensured they were safeguarding their residents. Details were also requested as to why vulnerable adults did not feel safe in the Borough. The Committee asked what the main issues were facing Adult Social Services and concluded their questioning by asking how officers got the message out to the diverse community in Brent.

Responding to the queries raised, Phil Porter informed members that it would be hard to quantify the financial benefits. However the work would be deemed as core business and therefore they would not have to make savings to deliver the work. In regards to how private care homes were licensed, Councillor Hirani explained that CQC checked all homes and accredited them. It was added that the council did not assess the quality of individual care homes themselves as this would result in a duplication of work. However they did carry out contract monitoring visits, social and feed information to the CQC. Therefore were checks and balances in place. Phil Porter clarified that the Council had a responsibility to all vulnerable adults whether their care was self-funded or publicly funded.

Phil Porter stated that it was a trend within the borough that people who received care did not feel as safe as people who received care in other boroughs. Therefore a wider council approach was needed to tackle this to ensure that people did feel safe. In regards to the risks that the work programme faced, Phil Porter stated that the main risk was under reporting of incidents. To ensure that this message was delivered to the diverse community Phil Porter was visiting the multi faith forum and added that more could be done to get the message out.

Councillor Hirani concluded by stating that they wanted to continue to raise the profile of abuse to vulnerable adults. They also wanted to change the culture so that people did not hide concern and instead there was an environment of openness.

The Committee thanked Phil Porter and Councillor Hirani and noted the presentation.