Abuse of adults with learning difficulties: user consultation in developing adult protection procedures and guidelines

Purpose -This article reports the findings from research into the governance of adult safeguarding policy and practice in England, with particular focus on interagency partnership arrangements expressed through Safeguarding Adults Boards.Design -The study comprised a systematic search and thematic analysis of Englishlanguage literature on adult safeguarding governance, a survey of Safeguarding Adults Board documentation, and key informant interviews and workshops with professionals involved in adult protection.Findings -The effectiveness of adult safeguarding governance arrangements has not been subject to prior formal evaluation and thus the literature provided little research-led evidence of good practice. The survey and workshops, however, revealed a rich and complex pattern of arrangements spanning a number of dimensions -the goals and purpose of interagency working, the structures of boards, their membership, chairing and rules of engagement, their functions, and their accountabilities.Research limitations/implications -The research focus was England, and thus does not incorporate learning from other jurisdictions. Whilst the research scrutinised the extent to which Boards practise empowerment, service users and carers were not directly involved in the fieldwork aspects of this study. In view of the absence of outcomes evidence identified, there remains a need to investigate the impacts of different forms of governance.Practical implications -Drawing on this research and on governance frameworks in the context of related interagency fields, the article identifies standards to benchmark the approach to governance taken by Safeguarding Adult Boards.Value -The benchmarking framework will enable Safeguarding Adults Boards to audit, evaluate and further develop a range of robust governance arrangements.

Section: Board Functionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That this remains a challenging area was reinforced by concerns in the literature relating to people's lack of involvement in decision-making regarding their own protection, low expectations and reluctance to speak out, and exclusion from policy development (Wishart, 2003;Penhale et al, 2007;Giordano and Street, 2009). …”

Section: Figure Six About Herementioning

confidence: 99%

The governance of adult safeguarding: findings from research

Braye

Orr²,

Preston‐Shoot³

2012

“…The call for changes increased steadily however, with an increased recognition of abuse and a significant research and practice focus (NHS Scotland, 2004;Wishart, 2003).…”

Section: Background To the Legislationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adult protection in Scotland in 1857 and in 2015: what have we learned?

Campbell

2016

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to compare recent developments in adult protection legislation, policy and practice in Scotland in 2015 with the first attempts at adult protection of adults at risk of harm, in 1857-62, with a particular focus on people with learning disabilities.Design/methodology/approach: The paper uses comparative historical research, drawing on primary archive material from 1857-62 in the form of Annual Reports of the General Board of Commissioners in Lunacy for Scotland and associated papers.Findings: Growing public awareness of the extent of neglect and abuse, and the need for overarching legislation were common factors in the development of both the "The Lunacy Act" of 1857 and the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act of 2007. Both pieces of legislation also had the common aim of "asylum", and shared some other objectives.Practical implications: Total prevention of abuse of vulnerable adults is an aspiration in law and in policy. There is an evidence base of effectiveness however in protecting adults at risk of harm from abuse. Some ecological factors recur as challenges to effective safeguarding activity. These include problems of definition, uncovering abuse, enforcing legislation, evaluating impact, and protection of people who are not a risk of harm to others. Originality/value: This paper compares common themes and common challenges in two separate time periods to investigate what can be learned about development of legislation and practice in adult protection.The research was funded by the Carnegie Foundation in Scotland.

“…Some studies and monitoring activities have begun to tap these views (e.g. Douglass, 2005;Mackay et al, 2011;Penhale et al, 2007); however professional perspectives still predominate in research and policy-making (Wishart, 2003). This is despite increasing pressure from a range of sources for more participatory models of practice and policy development (Beresford, 2002), with progress having been made in some related fields (Gramlich et al, 2002;Social Care Institute for Excellence, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The experience of being protected

Sherwood-Johnson

Cross

Daniel

2013

Purpose: The purpose of the paper is to discuss how adult support and protection (ASP) work might support or further damage an adult's strengths, skills and sense of self. There is a particular focus on adults who require some support with decision-making.Design/methodology/approach: Forum theatre and other creative techniques were used to discuss ASP with 42 people who access support. A range of advice for practitioners was generated, a portion of which is reported here. The research design was participatory, with ten people who access support being members of the research team.Findings: ASP work can support or undermine an adult's strengths, skills and sense of self, depending on the way it is performed. Three inter-locking themes are presented to illustrate this finding. First, participants thought it might be intimidating to be "singled out", and wished to be understood in the context of their relationships. Second, ASP was thought likely to be experienced as a judgement on the person and their problem-solving skills. Third, people wanted to be "really listened to" and acknowledged as a person with preferences and strengths.Practical implications: It is important for practitioners to be mindful of the process of ASP work, as well as of its outcomes. Ways must be found to keep the person central, and to maintain and develop their strengths and sense of self.2 Originality/value: The perspectives of adults actually or potentially affected by ASP have been underresearched. This study adds substantially to the available evidence.