Advising board members

Serious Case Review Quality Markers 

Quality statement

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?

  1. 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?
  2. Is the rationale for the decision of the chair to hold an SCR (or not) full and explicit in its communication with LSBC members?

Knowledge base

Link to statutory guidance & inspection criteria

Tackling some common obstacles