There is a significant degree of variation between local authorities for certain measures. In many instances this variation will result from differing interpretations of the Care Act (2014) and different practices by local authorities, rather than from poor data quality per se. The framework to support local safeguarding decision making, mentioned previously, offers clarity on elements of reporting in the SAC around Section 42 enquiries and it is hoped this will reduce local variation. For 2019-20 data a small number of councils mentioned changes in policy due to the new framework, but there is still significant variation in the conversion rates from concerns to enquiries between local authorities.
In order to better understand local practice across England, NHS Digital undertook a voluntary survey of local authorities in 2018 to understand how they defined and recorded aspects of adult safeguarding within their SAC submission. Responses to the survey can be used to inform analysis of the data published in this release, in order to aid interpretation of the data submitted by local authorities and any differences between local authorities.
Additional care must be taken in particular when comparing the following areas:
Safeguarding concerns:
The data identify a wide variety in the numbers of concerns submitted by local authorities. Discussions with local authorities have identified that differing approaches to how concerns are addressed by the ‘front door’ services will vary between them. In some local authorities concerns are filtered out before they reach the safeguarding team and are not included in the submitted data. Where they exist, Multi Agency Safeguarding Hubs (MASHs) may have an impact on the numbers of concerns that are reported in the SAC.
Trigger for a safeguarding enquiry:
A safeguarding enquiry starts when the initial information gathering has established that there is reasonable cause to suspect that all three of the Section 42 part 1 (S42(1)) criteria are met, or where the criteria are not met the decision has been made that it is necessary and proportionate to respond as a safeguarding enquiry (called Other enquiry).
At present we know there is variation in the point at which initial information gathering, following a concern being raised, then triggers a Section 42 part 2 enquiry (simply called a Section 42 enquiry in the SAC) or Other enquiry, according to explanations provided by data providers.
There is no fixed point during the early phase of an enquiry when a practitioner must determine how to report activity within the SAC return. It may be that this is determined, and therefore recorded and reported as a Section 42 enquiry, after the practitioner has already done part of it. Reporting and recording reflect practice decisions.
Section 42 and Other enquiries:
The methodology by which local authorities determine whether enquiries are undertaken under Section 42 part 2 of the Care Act (2014) or not varies, as can be seen from the counts of Other queries submitted in the SAC. As much of the data on Other enquiries is voluntary to submit, including demographics of the individuals involved and the nature of the risks faced, we are unable to reliably analyse this in further depth (59.0% of cells submitted in 2019-20). Therefore, care should be taken when comparing data as there may not be a complete picture of safeguarding in those authorities with high numbers or proportions of Other enquiries. It should be noted that the distinction between Section 42 and Other enquiries only exists within the SAC; as part of the survey of local practice 43.6% of completed responses stated that the distinction between Section 42 and Other was not used for local operational or reporting purposes.
‘Conversion rate’ of concerns to enquiries:
There should be no logical conclusion drawn that the number of safeguarding concerns that lead to a Safeguarding enquiry is a reliable indicator of whether people are protected. This must not be used as a comparator for effectiveness and care must be taken in analysing conversion rates and they cannot be used to inferring ‘good’ or ‘bad’ safeguarding practice. Local information about those circumstances that do not warrant such a statutory enquiry will support a broader picture about the effectiveness of safeguarding support in a local area. Aspects of the data and other available information should be used as a ‘can opener’ to ask questions rather than attempting to draw generalised conclusions.
Current developments:
As we have acknowledged the Care Act (2014) is open to local interpretation, however attempts are being undertaken to help develop frameworks around elements of the Care Act to result in more consistent approach to defining these key elements and reduce variation. This is being led by the Local Government Association (LGA) and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS). In relation to safeguarding concerns, this aims to support consistent local authority decision making and achieve greater understanding across sectors of what constitutes a safeguarding concern so that people get a response that is right for them. This may have an impact on the data that is collected in the SAC from 2020-21 onwards and will be taken account of for future years.
In relation to safeguarding enquiries, the framework for Making Decisions on the duty to carry out Safeguarding Adults enquiries was published in August 2019 by LGA. Whilst this framework has been developed to support safeguarding practice it also offers clarity on elements of reporting in the SAC around Section 42 enquiries and we have refined the data collection guidance in order to improve consistency of reporting, in accordance with this new framework. The framework was published halfway through the reporting year 2019-20. The full impact of this framework will only be seen in 2020-21 because this will be the first full year in which the framework can influence practice and reporting. At this stage the Experimental Statistics label will be reviewed.
The new framework emphasises that the SAC reports activity under Section 42 part 2 (S42(2)) as set out above. It does not reflect significant and effective early intervention and prevention in safeguarding people, which takes place within S42(1) information gathering, to find out whether there is reasonable cause to suspect that the three statutory criteria are met. The framework underlines the importance of generating and making available local information (to complement the data in the SAC) to give broader assurance of effectiveness of support outside of S42(2).
In addition to the above, discussions are also taking place with the Safeguarding Adults Collection Working Group on the definition of ‘Other Enquiries’. A paper has been produced on how to improve consistency of reporting and once a decision has been made, local authorities will be informed via the September letter and Data Provision Notice.
Other issues relating to 2019-20 data:
149 of the 151 local authorities, submitted a return for all mandatory cells by the mandated deadline. A validation report was sent to each of the 149 local authorities following a successful upload. The report includes a summary of measures of data integrity that identified logically inconsistent combinations of data, such as situations where table totals or total of rows within tables should be logically lower, higher or equal to other tables/rows within the submission template. Local authorities were then given a further opportunity to make amendments to their submission. The summary measures indicate that the data submitted was valid and complete to a high degree. Two local authorities did not make a submission by the first deadline and so did not receive a data quality validation report. However, all local authorities made a valid submission by the final deadline and the final returns yielded a national completeness and validity score of 100%.
Making Safeguarding Personal information is voluntary to submit in the SAC. This year has seen a rise in the number of enquiries for which MSP data was provided, from just over 91,000 in 2018-19 to almost 114,000 in 2019-20, a 24.7% increase. A small number of local authorities have particularly contributed to this increase.
Some local authorities gave comments in their data return to explain errors or issues with their data. NHS Digital would like to thank these local authorities for their transparency. Specific key issues relating to local authorities are given below.
Local Authority |
Table Affected - reference |
Table Affected - details |
Local Authority Comment |
210 - Calderdale |
SG1d, SG2a, SG2b, SG2c and SG2e |
Counts of individuals by Primary Support reason and Case Detail Tables |
Calderdale council advised that the Primary Support Reasons 'Support with Memory & Cognition' and 'Learning Disability Support' are captured within the Physical and Mental Health categories. Due to the constraints of their current system, Domestic Abuse cases were categorised under Neglect or Physical Abuse. A new system enhancement will ensure that this is captured more accurately in future.
There is also a high number of unknown source of risk due to not all source of risk categories being on the reporting system.
Calderdale also informed that their overall number of Section 42s were high for Care Home - Residential due to dual registered homes, a proportion of which should be Nursing.
|
|
215 - Kingston Upon Hull |
SG2a |
Counts of enquiries by type and source of risk |
The council advised that there may be some under reporting. Due to Covid-19 pressures, the council was unable to allocate the required resources to resolve exceptions. These exceptions have not been included and affect some tables.
|
306 - Manchester |
All |
All tables |
Manchester council advised the council implemented a new recording system in July 2019, the change in system might result in the duplication of activity reported as well as changes in trend in comparison with previous years |
503 - Lincolnshire |
SG2c and SG3a |
Risk Assessment Outcomes by source of risk and Risk Outcomes and Mental Capacity Table for Concluded Section 42 Safeguarding Enquiries |
Lincolnshire council advised they are now reporting all closed enquiries in year, rather than following a cohort through from concern to closure, this explains the difference between SG2c and SG3a |
607 - Norfolk |
SG2a_b1 |
Counts of enquiries by type and location of risk |
Norfolk council contacted NHS Digital to inform that they are unable to link abuse location to type of abuse where there are multiple types in one enquiry. NHS Digital advised to only include enquiries with one abuse type and location in table SG2a_b1 |
607 - Norfolk |
SG2a |
Counts of enquiries by type and source of risk |
Norfolk council advised that domestic abuse will be slightly low due to workers missing it out when recording physical, psychological and sexual abuse by family members. This is being addressed and is improving. |
615 - West Berkshire |
SG4a |
Making Safeguarding Personal |
The council informed that the in the SAC submitted for 2018-19, the figures in the SG4a table were transposed incorrectly for ‘Yes, were asked and expressed outcomes’ and ‘Yes, were asked and no outcomes expressed’ options. This causes issues with comparing to the 2019-20 data. |
620 - Essex |
SG1a, SG1b, SG1c, SG1d and SG1e |
Counts of individuals by age band, gender, ethnicity, Primary Support Reason and Reported Heath Conditions |
Essex council advised they detected an error in the 2018-19 Submission in relation to the total Concerns being received.
The number of Concerns should include the Number of Enquiries, however it only details the number of concerns that did not progress.
|
621 – Southend on Sea |
SG2a, SG2b, SG2c and SG2e |
Counts of enquires by type and source of risk, Counts of enquires by type and location of risk, Risk Assessment Outcome by source of risk and Risk Outcome by source of risk |
Southend on Sea advised that there were 72 of 1061 records where perpetrator was not recorded and 64 of 1061 records where Location of Risk was not recorded for concluded Section 42 enquiries, as these were not mandatory fields. This issue was resolved by the end of August 2019. |
718 - Bexley |
SG1f and SG2a |
Counts of Safeguarding Activity and counts of enquiries by type and source of risk |
As part of their submission of 2019-20 data Bexley council informed there were differences compared to their 2018-19 submission.
In 2018-19, concerns with alternative responses (e.g. carers assessment, signposted) were categorised as Other Enquiries. This year, as per the new Framework and flow chart in the guidance document, alternative responses are not counted as Other Enquiries.
In 2018-19, the risk type breakdown for concluded Section 42 enquiries was submitted incorrectly.
|
723 - Enfield |
SG1f |
Counts of Safeguarding Activity |
Enfield council informed that the total number of Section 42 Safeguarding Enquiries is lower than expected due to a mid-year change in system, lockdown due to Covid-19 and a change in guidance around the definitions of Section 42 which has impacted service processes. |
817 - Wiltshire |
SG2a, SG2b, SG2a_b1, SG2c, SG2e, SG3a and SG3b |
Case detail tables and mental capacity tables |
Wiltshire advised in the case detail tables and the mental capacity tables, there was some data that was not recorded and so can’t be reported, this is because they weren’t mandatory fields in their previous care management system. Wiltshire also changed care management systems during the year which has caused some anomalies in the recorded data. |
820 - Kent |
SG1e |
Counts of individuals by Reported Health Conditions |
Kent advised that, within the Reported Health Conditions field they do not currently capture Autism (excluding Asperger’s Syndrome / High Functioning Autism), therefore as this is a mandatory field the zero-figures recorded represent a zero return rather than zero cases. |
911- South Gloucestershire |
SG2c and SG3a |
Risk Assessment Outcomes by source of risk and Risk Outcomes and Mental Capacity Table for Concluded Section 42 Safeguarding Enquiries |
South Gloucestershire council advised that the total for SG2c should be 823. The extra 23 need to be checked to see which category they are, but they have not had the resource to do this during the COVID-19 Lockdown period. |
Impact of Coronavirus (COVID-19):
England went into national lockdown following the outbreak of Covid-19 in March 2020. Although the majority of the data collected was pre lockdown, local authorities had to support the Covid-19 response and so may have had less resource to work on the national data collections. As mentioned below, the timelines for collecting the data was pushed back to give local authorities more time to complete the data returns.
A small number of councils mentioned the impact of Covid-19, in particular on resources. These comments are included in the summary table above.
We have also tried to look holistically across all local authorities at the possible impact dealing with the pandemic has had on data quality, in terms of reduced capacity to collate and review the data before sending it to NHS Digital. We have concluded that data quality has not been adversely affected at national level. As mentioned above, like in 2018-19, all local authorities made a valid submission by the final deadline and the final returns yielded a national completeness and validity score of 100%. The annex table that accompanies this publication also includes some data integrity checks. There are 13 data integrity checks that are carried out for each local authority return. In 2018-19, there were 32 checks that did not pass the validation rule, in 2019-20 there were 36. The largest increase was in data integrity check 7, SG2c total should be greater than or equal to SG3a total (for Section 42 enquiries). In addition, we have looked at whether there has been more of a propensity to return values of ‘not known’ for certain data items – this is true for a small number of local authorities but does not significantly impact on the national picture.
Please see the Data Quality Statement for more information on data quality.