SERIOUS CASE REVIEW PROCEDURE

1
SERIOUS CASE REVIEW PROCEDURE

• NICKY BROWNJOHN
• DESIGNATED NURSE FOR SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN
• SEPTEMBER 2009

2
HOW MANY MORE?
3
WORKING TOGETHER TO SAFEGUARD CHILDREN CHAPTER 8

• Ofsted evaluations
• Not reflective of self assessments / inspections
  / JAR
• Media attention professional blame
• Always same learning how useful??
• Too distant from coal face
• Lack of transparency
• Inconsistent with related processes
• Reviewed Chapter 8 consultation until October
  2009 (ECM website) to improve process

4
DEFINITION

• When a child dies, and abuse or neglect is known
  or suspected to be a factor in the death, the
  first priority of local organisations should be
  to consider immediately whether there are other
  children at risk of harm who require
  safeguarding. Thereafter, organisations should
  consider whether there are any lessons to be
  learnt about the ways in which they work
  individually and together to safeguard and
  promote the welfare of children.
• When a child dies and abuse or neglect is known
  or suspected to be a factor in the death, the
  LSCB should always conduct a serious case review
  into the involvement with the child and family of
  organisations and professionals. Serious injuries
  due to abuse or neglect
• Concerns about inter-agency working to protect
  children

5
PURPOSE

• Establish whether there are lessons to be learnt
  from the case about the way in which local
  professionals and organisations work individually
  and together to safeguard and promote the welfare
  of children
• Identify clearly what those lessons are both
  within and between agencies,
• How they will be acted on, and
• What is expected to change as a result and
• As a consequence improve intra and inter-agency
  working and better safeguard and promote the
  welfare of children.
• Serious case reviews are not inquiries into how a
  child died or who is culpable. That is a matter
  for Coroners and criminal courts, respectively,
  to determine as appropriate.

6
PROCESS

• Integrated chronology
• Identify critical points
• Set terms of reference and focus of review
• Single agency review
• Multi agency overview
• Working together to change of practice

7
INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITIES

• Report incidents to line manager / safeguarding
  lead
• Cooperate with review
• Reflect on involvement
• Seek support / supervision
• Contribute to organisational learning

8
MANAGERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES

• Report incidents to safeguarding lead
• Locate and secure records
• Identify support needs of staff
• Support arrangements for staff to be interviewed
• Accept recommendations
• Take ownership of action plan
• Reporting mechanisms

9
ORGANISATION RESPONSIBILITIES

• Ensure reporting mechanisms in place for SCRS and
  interlinked processes
• Culture for immediate learning and action
• Transparency
• Support timescales
• Ratification of reports
• Monitor action plan
• Contribution to BSCB work

10
BSCB RESPONSIBILITIES

• Coordinate review
• Ensure independence
• Involve family
• Set action plan
• Monitor actions
• Challenge non compliant agencies
• Support no blame culture of change

11
NEAR MISSES

• Individual responsibilities
• - follow procedures
• - report problems
• Agency leadership
• - resources
• - accountability
• - challenge
• Resolving professional difficulties protocol
• - Professional challenge
• - Constructive debate
• - No blame culture

• Quality standards
• - multi agency sub committee of BSCB
• - consider working together issues
• - audit cases referred in by any practitioner
• - identify key learning
• - policies and procedures review
• -BSCB Executive Committee

12
NEAR MISSES

• Waiting for an incident to happen before
  systems are reviewed can be too late SCIE 2008
• Definition of a near miss
• - something could have gone wrong but was
  prevented
• - something did go wrong but no serious
  harm was caused
• Continual learning
• - integrated audit process
• - identify good practice

13
MORE THAN TICKING BOXES