Advising board members
Serious Case Review Quality Markers
There is transparency among Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) members about Serious Case Review (SCR) decision-making and outcome.
Successful learning and improvement is achieved through maximum agency input to support the SCR, including the resource commitment that is required. This is more likely to be achieved if the decision-making and outcome is known by all LSCB members.
The chair has specific delegated authority for decision-making about SCRs and LSCB member agencies need to have confidence in the discharge of that function, which should be transparent.
For the issue of informing any other parties that may have an interest, see quality marker on parallel processes.
How might you know if you are meeting this quality marker?
- Is there a mechanism to advise the LSCB membership as a whole of the decision about whether to proceed with the SCR and outcome of this process?
- Is the rationale for the decision of the chair to hold an SCR (or not) full and explicit in its communication with LSBC members?
- We have not been able to identify any relevant research base or practice knowledge for this quality statement.
Link to statutory guidance & inspection criteria
- We have not been able to identify any relevant statutory guidance or inspection criteria statement, however ‘Working together’ (HM Government 2015) requires the LSCB to have a learning and improvement framework and states that ‘These processes should be transparent …’ (p 72).
Tackling some common obstacles
- There is not an established tradition in LSCBs of transparency in relation to SCR decision-making.
- Strong communication systems between working groups, such as the SCR sub-committee or equivalent, and the wider Board assists all LSCB members to understand the decision.