Assembling information

Serious Case Review Quality Markers 

Quality statement

The Serious Case Review (SCR) gains sufficient information to underpin an analysis of the case in the context of normal working practices and relevant organisational factors.


The purpose of an SCR is to learn from past professional practice to support improvements in future safeguarding. This requires an analysis that evaluates and explains professional practice in the case, shedding light on routine challenges and constraints to practitioner efforts to safeguard children. The organisational factors that helped and hindered timely help to families and protection of children need to be ascertained. This requires a wide range of information types to be gathered including:

The sources of such information are varied including:

A range of different techniques exist through which to engage with these different types of information and make best use of what they can provide.

What is a sufficient amount of information will vary. All reviews aim to be proportionate, which means that different reviews will require different amounts of information assembled to achieve their aims. Different commissioners and different models vary in how much they aim to clarify whether any problematic practice identified in the case was more widespread at the time. Similarly, only some models set out to assess the current relevance of past practice issues identified in the case being reviewed. Information needs may also change as the analysis progresses.

How might you know if you are meeting this quality marker?

  1. Has there been discussion about what information needs to be requested and what level of detail is required, relative to decision-making about the proportionality and other commissioning specifications of the review?
  2. Has guidance been provided to LSCB members about what information is requested at the beginning of the review, and the level of detail required, and why?
  3. Have all potential sources of relevant information been considered?
  4. Has access been arranged for the lead reviewer(s) and relevant others to all the different sources of information deemed relevant?
  5. Are the methods being proposed for assembling the information appropriate to the nature of the different information sources and the commissioning specification of the SCR?
  6. Does the structure of the SCR enable direct input by practitioners and managers (e.g. interviews, group meetings)?
  7. Is there transparency about any reasons for non-cooperation by LSCB members?

Knowledge base

Link to statutory guidance & inspection criteria

Tackling some common obstacles