Search results

The purpose of this paper is to consider the process of undertaking a Safeguarding Adult Review (SAR) from the perspective of an Independent Author and from an agency participating in one and to stimulate a debate on both the process and the culture of Safeguarding Adults Boards that commission them.

The author drew solely on his own experience as an Independent Author and member of an SAR Panel.

The finding of this paper is that Safeguarding Adults Board vary in their commissioning process for SARs and their expectations of the role of Independent Author and the SAR Panel.

The paper is drawn from the experience of the author and is therefore subjective.

There are implications for the role of Independent Authors and the process by which SARs are commissioned and managed.

The author is not aware of similar consideration of the experience of an Independent Author or of an agency participating in a SAR.

This paper aims to stimulate discussion.

The paper is a personal reflection and is not a research paper; there is not therefore a design or methodology that was used in its writing.

While it may initially appear that a strength-based approach is incompatible with safeguarding adults, it can be a valuable long-term tool in supporting adults who have been abused or self-neglected.

The piece is a personal reflection and therefore not based on research but it does highlight the need for further research to develop tools to facilitate the interface between safeguarding and a strengths-based approach.

The need to recognise when a strengths-based approach is and is not appropriate in safeguarding adults.

The author is not aware of a similar consideration of the interface between safeguarding adults practice and a strengths-based approach.

To reflect on the particular case from a professional’s perspective to provide, in conjunction with the original article, a more holistic overview of some of its implications for safeguarding practice and, by definition, for the provision of health and social care support services to individuals with a traumatic brain injury and their families. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

A response to an already published article.

That a lack of “professional curiosity” on the part of practitioners across a range of professions and agencies led to a failure to initiate safeguarding processes and procedures appropriately, resulting in avoidable damage to the subject of the article, the author’s partner and their families.

There is a need for a greater awareness and understanding of the implications of traumatic brain injuries across health and social care services: that hospital discharge planning and community support services need to be more flexible in identifying and meeting the needs of patients with traumatic brain injury, that there is no substitute for “professional curiosity” in ensuring that assessments are holistic, and that services are appropriate and multi-agency working is effective.

This is a response to an existing publication.