Safeguarding adult reviews: informing and enriching policy and practice on self-neglect. Issue 4 (15th September 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Preston-Shoot, Michael
• Is Part Of: Journal of adult protection. Volume 22:Issue 4(2020)
• Page Start: 199
• Page End: 215
• Publication Date: 2020-09-15
• Subjects: Research -- Evidence -- Safeguarding adult reviews; Older people -- Abuse of -- Prevention -- Periodicals; 362.6
• DOI: 10.1108/JAP-02-2020-0003
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1466-8203

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to update the core data set of self-neglect safeguarding adult reviews (SARs) and accompanying thematic analysis and explore the degree to which SARs draw upon available research and learning from other completed reviews. Design/methodology/approach: Further published reviews are added to the core data set, mainly drawn from the websites of Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs). Thematic analysis is updated using the four domains used previously. The four domains and the thematic analysis are rounded in the evidence-based model of good practice, reported in this journal previously. Multiple exclusion homelessness and alcohol misuse are prominent in this sample of reviews. Findings: Familiar findings emerge from the thematic analysis and reinforce the evidence-base of good practice with individuals who self-neglect and for policies and procedures with which to support those practitioners working with such cases. Multiple exclusion homelessness emerges as a subset within this sample, demonstrating that SABs are engaging in reviews of people who die on the streets or in temporary accommodation. Research limitations/implications: The national database of reviews commissioned by SABs remains incomplete and does not contain many of the SARs reported in this evolving data set. The Care Act 2014 does not require publication of reports but only a summary of findings and recommendations in SAB annual reports. NHS Digital annual data sets do not enable identification of reviews by types of abuse and neglect. It is possible, therefore, that this data set is also incomplete. Drawing together the findings from the reviews nonetheless builds on what is known about the components of effective practice, and effective policy and organisational arrangements for practice. Practical implications: Answering the question "why" remains a significant challenge for safeguarding adult reviews. The findings confirm the relevance of the evidence-base for effective practice but SARs are limited in their analysis of what enables and what obstructs the components of best practice. Greater explicit use of research and other published SARs might assist with answering the "why" question, drawing attention where appropriate to policies being pursued by the central government that undermine any initiative to end rough sleeping. Originality/value: This paper extends the thematic analysis of available reviews that focus on work with adults who self-neglect, further reinforcing the evidence-base for practice. The evidence-base also supports practice with individuals who experience multiple exclusion homelessness. Policymakers and practitioners have an approach to follow in this complex, challenging and demanding area of practice.