SAR Quality Marker 2: Decision making – what kind of SAR if any

1. Is the rationale for the decision clear and defensible, paying close attention to the Care Act 2014 and Making Safeguarding Personal principles?
2. Has a clear legal mandate been established reflecting either a mandatory SAR [sections 44(1), (2) and (3) Care Act 2014] or discretionary SAR [section 44(4)]?
3. Is there transparency about any conflicts of interest and how they have been managed?
4. Is it evident how race, culture, ethnicity and other protected characteristics as codified by the Equality Act 2010 have been considered?
5. Has independent challenge to decision making been considered?
6. Have SAB member agencies had the opportunity to contribute to decision making process (whether or not the SAB has delegated decision making authority to the Independent Chair) through participating in a SAB subgroup or by other means?
7. Is there transparency for SAB members on the decision-making process and outcomes?
8. Has legal advice been sought, if appropriate, to check the lawfulness of the decision making?
9. Are explanations provided for any delays in decision making?
10. Is the clarity of purpose (QM 4) evident in decision making rationale?

1. Has meaningful multi-agency discussion informed the recommendation to the Chair?

The case

2. Has there been appropriate challenge about how an adult with care and support needs is defined?
3. Have the kinds of abuse and/or neglect the person suffered been specified?
4. Have discussions about the abuse and neglect suffered by the person included self-neglect?
5. Where the person has survived, has there been adequate consideration of their experiences to support a person-centred assessment of whether the abuse and/or neglect experienced was serious?
6. Have discussions about any cause for concern about the quality of safeguarding practice, overtly referenced the principles of Making Safeguarding Personal?
7. Have discussions about any cause for concern about the quality of safeguarding practice overtly considered how race, culture, ethnicity and other protected characteristics, as codified by the Equality Act 2010, may have impacted on case management, including recognition of unconscious bias?
8. Have discussions about any cause for concern about working together to safeguard, included consideration of all parts of the system – provider and commissioner, direct practice and oversight?
9. Has the right balance been struck between timely decision making and the amount of time it is going to take to determine whether a SAR is mandatory in this particular instance?
10. Have the benefits of using the discretionary power of Section 44 (4) of the Care Act 2014 in order to proactively learn from practice in the case, been considered in tandem with identifying whether the circumstances meet the criteria for a mandatory SAR?
11. Is there evidence of sufficient good practice in the case that may allow learning about supportive system conditions which can be shared across the partnership?
12. Have alternative statutory review pathways or a single agency review been considered?

Local context

13. Do other quality assurance and feedback sources (e.g. audits/complaints) suggest the kind of practice issues in the case and/or their systemic causes are new, complex or repetitive?
14. Are any of the issues and the system conditions indicated in this case, relevant to the SAB strategic plan and/or current and future priorities?
15. Has it been confirmed whether similar cases and/or circumstances have been subject of an earlier SAR locally, or the target of recent improvement activity, with implications for decision making about the size and scope of the potential review?
    • For example, are there any different features in this case that may generate new insights?
    • For example, does the focus need to be moved to understanding the extent to which change has been achieved since the previous SAR and why?
16. Has it been confirmed whether any similar cases or circumstances have been considered recently for a SAR, that suggest a local learning need in this practice area?
17. Has the recommendation to the SAB or Chair about whether a SAR is needed given an indication of the appropriate size/scope given the case and context?

1. There are not currently any comments for this section.

1. Have all key agencies provided information about their involvement?
2. Have neighbouring SABs been asked for information, if the person lived outside the SAB area?
3. Has intelligence from other quality assurance and feedback sources, that is relevant to practice in this case, been gathered E.g. audits/benchmarking, complaints and previous SARs?
4. Are you clear whether the s42 is completed (where relevant)?
5. Have other parallel processes been identified?
6. Is the decision-making rationale clearly documented on all records?