SAR Quality Marker 4: Clarity of purpose

1. Have you demonstrated strong overt leadership about the practical value of the SAR in surfacing learning about the causes of strengths and difficulties in safeguarding practice and furthering improvement activity?
2. Have you demonstrated clear expectations that people use the escalation pathway to you, if there is any non-engagement by providers, commissioners or other agencies involved in the SAR?
3. Have any complicating factors been honestly acknowledged?
4. Has consultation with legal departments been sought if appropriate?

1. Have you communicated with all the relevant parties (SAB members, involved agencies/provider/commissioner, leaders, legal advisors, as well as practitioners) a positive message about the statutory nature of the SAR, and restated its practical purpose of surfacing learning about the causes of strengths and difficulties in safeguarding practice and furthering improvement activity?
2. Have you clarified the kind of ‘learning’ that this SAR is intended to generate, or how it is going to progress improvement activity in order to minimise misunderstandings?
3. Is what you are saying underpinned by an agreed organisational accident or incident causation model (such as James Reason’s ‘swiss cheese’ model and variations thereof) to aid clarity and provide suitable vocabulary?
4. Has there been a multi-agency discussion regarding any possible tensions and complications, so that they can be to be recognised and managed as best as possible?

1. Are you confident that all parties are on the same page regarding the purpose of the SAR?
2. Have you initiated overt discussion about any areas of potential disagreement?

There are not currently any comments for this section.