SAR Quality Marker 9
The Safeguarding Adult Review (SAR) gains a sufficient range and quality of information and input, to determine the relevant objective facts, to 'stand in the shoes' and 'get inside the heads' of those involved and to grasp the way that single and multi-agency/professional practice is shaped both by work environments and conditions, and by social and organisational factors. The kinds of data assembled allows unique versus generalisable issues to be distinguished. The extent of, and methods for, data gathering are transparent and proportionate to the practical value of the SAR.
Questions to consider for:
Open Those ultimately accountable; Safeguarding Adult Board members and Chair
- Has the Board positively and clearly articulated the statutory duty on all agencies both to cooperate and contribute to this SAR and to provide information when the SAB exercises its power to request it (section 45 of Care Act 2014)?
- Has there been consideration of whether non-compliance with section 45 of the Care Act 2014 is likely from particular agencies, and how best to address this as early as possible?
- Have you demonstrated clear expectations that people use the escalation pathway to you, in respect of non- or partial engagement by participating agencies or individuals?
Open Those with delegated responsibility; the SAR subgroup or similar
- Does the specification of information required and the level of detail needed, match with decision making about the precise form and focus, and approach agreed for the SAR commissioned (QM5)?
- Has decision making about what data to seek from which sources been mindful of the need to be proportionate relative to the practical value of the SAR (QM4)?
- Are all the ways proposed for gathering relevant information efficient, matching the proportionality agreed for the SAR, and minimizing demand on all participants?
- Is everyone clear that any requests to extend information gathering needs to be considered in light of the precise form and focus of the SAR, and approach agreed?
- Do you have adequate expertise in research methods and/or quality improvement to have oversight of plans and progress of information gathering for this SAR?
Open Those conducting the review; Independent Reviewers
- Will the types of information and input you are seeking allow the SAR to fulfil its purpose (QM4) of illuminating barriers and enablers to good practice, untangling systemic risks, and progressing improvement activities?
- Are you clear what kind of data you are seeking from the different sources of information, and from different contributors to the SAR?
- Where others are supporting you, have you enabled them to understand what kind of information they are looking for from different sources, be it people or paperwork?
- Have all avenues and sources of information and input been considered to cover the range of relevant positions and perspectives, including all parts of multi-agency configurations, both operational and strategic angles?
- Is there sufficient clarity about the methodological purpose of any plans to gather practitioners together, specifically about the kind of data they are able to provide and by what means it is going to be sought during the meeting?
- Is there clarity about what kind of input needs to be sought from the person, where it is possible, and others significant to them?
- Have all requirements regarding the processing of personal data been fulfilled in accordance with the current UK Data Protection Legislation and associated regulations including: Data Protection Act 2018, UK General Data Protection Regulation (“UKGDPR”) and The Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003?
Open Those providing practical support; SAB Business Managers/Unit
- Are you clear as to the range of information that needs to be assembled given the commission of this particular SAR and what arrangements are needed to support input from different individuals and groups of people?
- Have the methods of gathering information in this SAR been documented?
- Has guidance been provided to participating agencies and divisions about what information is requested at the beginning of the review, and the level of detail required, and why?
- Where initial information gathering has taken place to support decision making about the referral, is there clarity about what additional information is needed to reflect the precise form and focus of the SAR (QM5)?
- Has access been arranged for the reviewer(s) and relevant others to all the different sources of information and input deemed relevant?