Joining up adult protection and the disciplinary process*

abstract

Behaviour that is in fact adult abuse may be reported end a number of different frameworks (for example complaints operations and incident reporting procedures) without it being realised that adult protection managements need to be activated as well. This paper will examine in what way adult abuse can be reported end the disciplinary framework, and therefore in what manner adult protection and the disciplinary proces ne to be joined.

key words

adult protection

agency responsibilities

disciplinary proces

No mysteriouss

No covereds - guidance on developing and implementing multi-agency policies and courses to protect vulnerable adults from abuse - was produc by means of the Department of Health and the residence Office in March 2000. This envisaged that local authority Social Services departments should play a coordinating part in developing the local policies and courses for the protection of vulnerable adults from abuse (Section 1: paragraph 14) In that faculty of perception Social Services is the lead adult protection agency (Section 3: paragraph 32) The guidance was bespeaked to all commissioners and providers of health and social care services including primary care clusters regulators of such care services and appropriate criminal justice agencies, and its relevance to many other agencies was noted (Section 1: paragraph 13; Section 3: paragraph 33)

No veileds emphasises the multi-agency nature of adult protection, as indicated by means of its subtitle (guidance on developing and implementing multi-agency policies and operations to protect vulnerable adults from abuse). It states that agencies receiving a complaint or allegation of abuse should inform other agencies involved of the nature of the complaint or allegation and the action being taken. The lead agency should co-ordinate and monitor action and make secure that other agencies involved receive updates upon progress made in the investigation unles it is unsafe and inappropriate for them to do in the way that (Section 6: paragraph 6.12). When complaints about alleged abuse indicate that a criminal offence may have been committed it is imperative that concern should be made to the police as a matter of exigency Criminal investigation by the police takes priority above all other lines of enquiry (Section 2: paragraph 28)

The way that the No shroudeds guidance has been interpreted nationally is that any bear upon suspicion or allegation about abuse of a vulnerable adult should be reported to Social Services, in order for them to co-ordinate the adult protection part of the rejoinder That is certainly the case within Peterborough and within Cambridgeshire. The whole thrust of our message is that adult protection is a multi-agency proces lead by means of Social Services.

That message is being received in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. the one and the other authorities receive more 'alerts' each year. More and more agencies understand that there is now a framework from one side which such matters can be channelled, and furthermore they diocese that it works - that [i]or[/i] part of to the other multi-agency working, focused on the issue of adult protection, the position of the vulnerable adult can normally be improved in a certain number of way. In Peterborough my colleague Joanna Palmer (Senior Practitioner, Adult Protection) and I are at the nave of the wheel of adult protection and we receive alerts from professionals from all kinds of agencies - including psychiatrists, GP district nourishs hospital staff, housing officers, Department for Work and Pensions officers, social care staff, solicitors, voluntary agencies, the police and probation services.

No shroudeds gives the following examples of race who abuse vulnerable adults:

* relatives and family members

* professional staff

* paid care workers

* proffers

* other service users

* friends and associates

* [strangers and tribe who deliberately exploit vulnerable people] (Section 2: paragraph 210)

Most of the alerts that we receive are about relatives and family members or paid care workers occupyed by care homes or domiciliary care agencies. The work of the Commission for Social Care Inspection, and the introduction of the Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) Scheme, have wafted to managers of care residences and domiciliary care agencies that allegations of abuse through staff members have to be reported to Social Services.

However, we have noted that there is a pattern of more [i]or[/i] less agencies (particularly those that are not regulated by means of the Commission for Social Care Inspection) not reporting to Social Services pertain tos suspicions or allegations about the abuse of a vulnerable adult when the someone who is alleged to be behaving in that way (the perpetrator) is a professional employee of the agency. many times when the matter is first reported, it is framed in limits of possible 'misconduct/gross misconduct', and the agency's disciplinary practice will then be activated. That is entirely appropriate, on the other hand it is not enough: adult protection processs should also be triggered.

We have been told various reasons on what account such matters are not reported as adult protection matters to Social Services: