Safeguarding Adult Collection (SAC) Presentation of Key Findings to

Safeguarding Adults Board

Return Data Compiled by:

Nicola Reader, Senior Business Analyst

1

Introduction

• Records details about safeguarding activity for adults 18 and over

• Includes activity reported to or identified by councils with Adult Social Services Responsibilities (CASSRs)

• Includes demographic information about the adults at risk & details of the alleged incidents

• Return is split into 5 sections covering: Demographics, Case details, Mental Capacity, Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP), Safeguarding Adult Reviews (SARs)

2

Terminology

• Safeguarding concern Sign of suspected abuse or neglect that is reported to the council or identified by the council .

• Safeguarding enquiries The action taken or instigated by the LA in response to a concern that abuse or neglect may be taking place. Can range from a conversation with the adult to a more formal multi-agency plan or action. Two types: – Section 42: Where adult meets all of the section 42 criteria – Other: where adult does not meet all of section 42 criteria

but council considers it necessary & proportionate to have a safeguarding enquiry

3

Changes to 2015/16 return

• Public consultation (Dec ’14 – Feb ’15) about what changes needed as result of Care Act – Name change from Safeguarding Adult Reviews

(SAR) to Safeguarding Adults Collection (SAC)

– Section 42 Safeguarding enquiries – instead of referrals

– Collect counts of ‘safeguarding concerns’ and ‘Other safeguarding enquiries’ on voluntary basis

– Cease collecting data on whether individuals already known to council

4

Changes to 2015/16 return

– Four new risk categories (voluntary): sexual exploitation, modern slavery, domestic abuse & self-neglect

– Conclusion table no longer collected (substantiated, not substantiated etc.)

– New tables - Making Safeguarding Personal (MSP) – voluntary

5

2015 / 16 return Data

6

Section 1 - Summary Safeguarding concerns that were raised or safeguarding enquiries that commenced during 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016. * 577 were Section 42 enquiries, and 2 ‘Other Enquiries’

2014/15 2015/16

Unique Cases Unique Cases

Concerns Not collected 1180 1953

Referrals/Enquiries 632 659 579 676

Per 100,000 adults 560 580 510 595

England 2014/15 per 100,000 adults

243 ~ ~ ~

South East 2014/15 per 100,000 adults

206 ~ ~ ~

7

SAC return – Section 1

Table SG1a: Enquiries - count by Age Band

Table SG1b: Enquiries - count by Gender

Male Female

2014/15 225 (36%) 407 (64%)

2015/16 245 (42%) 334 (58%)

England 2014/15 40% 60%

18-64 65-74 75-84 85-94 95+

2014/15 186 (29%) 65 (10%) 138 (22%) 202 (32%) 41 (7%)

2015/16 198 (34%) 60 (10%) 149 (26%) 150 (26%) 22 (4%)

England 2014/15

36% 12% 23% 29%

8

SAC return – Section 1

Table SG1c: Enquiries - count by Ethnicity

White Mixed/ Multiple

Asian / Asian British

Black / African / Carib / Black

brit

Other Ethnic group

Refused Undeclared / Unknown

2014/15 606 (96%) 0 1 1 0 ~ 24 (4%)

2015/16 545 (94%) 2 5 2 0 0 25 (4%)

England 2014/15

85% 1% 3% 3% 1% 7%

9

SAC return – Section 1 Table SG1d: Enquiries - count by Primary Support Reason

Table SG1e: Enquiries - count by Reported Health Conditions

Physical Support

Sensory Support

Memory & Cogn

Learning Disability

Mental Health

Social Support

No Support Reason

2014/15 254 (40%) 9 (1%) 132 (21%) 82 (13%) 41 (7%) 5 (1%) 109 (17%)

2015/16 151 (26%) 5 (1%) 76 (13%) 85 (15%) 35 (6%) 4 (1%) 223 (38%)

England 2014/15

40% 2% 9% 15% 12% 4% 19%

Autism Asperger’s Syndrome/ High Functioning Autism

2014/15 6 1

2015/16 8 1

10

Section 2 - Summary

Counts and case details about safeguarding enquiries that concluded during 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016

Concluded Cases

2014/15 552

2015/16 847

11

SAC return – Section 2

Type of risk

2014/15 2015/16 England 2014/15

South East 2014/15

Physical 68 (12%) 112 (14%) 27% 27%

Psychological 82 (15%) 82 (10%) 15% 15%

Financial / Material

91 (16%) 137 (17%) 17% 16%

Neglect & Omission

286 (52%) 415 (51%) 32% 34%

Sexual 23 (4%) 41 (5%) 5%

8% Discriminatory 0 1 1%

Institutional 2 29 (4%) 3%

12

SAC return – Section 2

Type and source of risk

Social Care Support Other: Known Other: Unknown

IOW England IOW England IOW England

Physical 29% 27% 53% 60% 18% 14%

Psychological 32% 24% 54% 64% 13% 11%

Financial / Material

17% 19% 55% 63% 28% 19%

Neglect & Omission

74% 58% 23% 28% 3% 14%

Sexual 10% 16% 76% 64% 15% 21%

Discriminatory 0% 30% 100% 43% 0% 28%

Institutional 83% 69% 10% 19% 7% 12%

13

SAC return – Section 2

Location of risk

2014/15 2015/16 England 2014/15

South East 2014/15

Care Home 220 (40%) 369 (44%) 36% 36%

Hospital 51 (9%) 59 (7%) 6% 7%

Own Home 218 (40%) 304 (36%) 43% 40%

Service within Community

6 (1%) 8 (1%) 4% 4%

Other 57 (10%) 107 (13%) 11% 13%

14

SAC return – Section 2

Action taken

Social Care Support Other: Known Other: Unknown

IOW England IOW England IOW England

No action taken

53% 34% 34% 50% 13% 15%

Risk remains 29% 21% 59% 64% 12% 15%

Risk reduced

52% 35% 37% 50% 11% 14%

Risk removed

54% 44% 40% 41% 6% 14%

15

SAC return – Section 3

Counts of concluded safeguarding enquiries by age and mental capacity of adult at risk

Validation comment: We are unable to collect data on how many cases where the individual lacked capacity to make decisions were supported by an advocate, family or friend. This is an acceptable breach. Previous years have estimated this, last year left blank but HSCIC assumed 100% were supported.

Yes – Lacked Capacity

No Don’t know

Not Recorded

2014/15 160 (29%) 118 (21%) 43 (8%) 231 (42%)

2015/16 331 (39%) 514 (61%) 2 0

England 2014/15 25% 46% 16% 12%

16

SAC return – Section 5

Counts of individuals involved in Safeguarding Adult reviews (SARs)

Information provided by Fleur Gardiner In both years individual was in age band 75-84

2014/15 2015/16

Count where one or more individual died 1 1

Count where no individuals died 0 0

17

Notes

• We have higher than England average for Care Homes – is this being skewed due to our work with a number of care homes this year.

• Need to carry out more proactive work with Care Home Sector – some homes are very good at raising concerns/enquiries other homes we do not hear from

• Number of enquiries where hospital was the location of abuse is low – could be due to NHS dealing with the case or is it poor reporting?

18

Notes

• Raised importance of recording accurate Primary Support Reasons – as impacts on all of the annual returns, commissioning intelligence and budgets

• Important to record advocacy as will inform commissioning requirements

19