A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Council and councillors

Agenda item

LEICESTERSHIRE & RUTLAND SAFEGUARDING ADULTS BOARD ANNUAL REPORT 2017/18

To receive Report No.170/2018 from Robert Lake, Independent Chairman of the Leicestershire and Rutland Safeguarding Adults Board.

Minutes:

Report No. 170/2018 was received from the Independent Chair of the Leicestershire and Rutland Safeguarding Adults Board (LRSAB)

 

The purpose of the report was to seek the views of the Panel on the draft Annual Report 2017/18 for the LRSAB. Any comments or proposed additions would be addressed in the final report before it was presented to the LRSAB at its meeting on 25 October 2018 and subsequently published.

 

During discussion the following points were noted:

 

·         One of the current safeguarding risks was around financial abuse.

·         The snapshot of Rutland contained within the report showed that for its size, Rutland had a significant number of safeguarding alerts. Although the number of these alerts had risen, the number that actually met the threshholds had fallen.

·         Members expressed concern that having threshholds for the referrals would mean that some people at risk would drop through the net. The Chairman of the LRSAB responded that any service would need to triage referrals and have thresholds in place and that these thresholds were clearly defined under the Care Act 2014, sections 9 and 42. However, having a threshold for a safeguarding intervention did not mean that individuals were not offered any other help. Officers of the Council confirmed that within Adult Social Care as well as having a rapid response team that could go out and which acted as a safety net, the team took a very pro-active preventative approach.

·         The data and typographical errors in the draft that had been pointed out by Members would be corrected before the final report was approved by the LRSAB at its meeting on 25 October.

·         Members noted with regret the poor attendance from the Prison Service and the National Probation Service at the Safeguarding Adults Board meetings.

·         Anyone who was resident in a care home should be subject to a DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) order if they were not able to confirm that they were content to be in the care home. The Government was proposing that care home managers would be able to decide on someone’s mental capacity but there was a consensus that it would not be a good idea to have someone who had a financial incentive determining whether someone stayed in the home or not. This opinion would be put forward to the Government as a region so that it had more weight.

·         The statement regarding the number of people in Rutland whose day to day activities were limited was too generalised and it would be useful to have more information on age groups and the individual’s restrictions and disabilities. Members felt the statement needed quantifying so that relevance to safeguarding was highlighted.

·         Officers warned against the imposition of CCTV in care homes as they felt it was important to remember that these were people’s private homes and residents should not feel that they had to restrict their activities in any way. Those that could manage should be able to do so and the risk could be managed in alternative ways.

 

AGREED:

 

1.    The Panel NOTED the draft Annual Report.

 

Supporting documents: