proceduresonline.com€¦ · web viewboth qualitative information and quantitative information are...

Single Agency Case File Audit Guidance

Childrens Specialist Services

January 2017

Index

1.0 Introduction Page 3

2.0 Practice Standards Page 3

2.1 Table 4 Practice Standards Page 4

3.0 Audit Process Page 8

3.1 Audit Schedule and Feedback loop Page 8

4.0 LCS Flowchart Page 10

5.0 Auditors guidance Page 11

Appendix 1 Detailed Audit Grading Guidance Page 13

2Davina Hartley 020217 Guidance for Childrens Specialist Services Case File Audit

1.0 Introduction

Single agency case file audit is one part of the quality assurance and learning framework for the Bradford District. Quality Assurance, like safeguarding children is everybody’s responsibility. Single agency case file audit informs our work by providing monitoring and evaluation of social work practice within the District with the aim of improving our understanding of the work we do and whether it is making a difference to children and families. It provides us with continuous self-assessment with the aim of improving service delivery.

The purpose of continuous self-assessment through single agency case file audit is to:

Ensure services are evaluated Assess the quality of service user experience and outcomes Use practice standards to embed quality into service Ensure services sustainably achieve high standards Support continuous improvement Develop a learning and development culture Ensure quality assurance activity is carried out in partnership with

practitioners, managers, children and families

2.0 Practice Standards

All staff employed by Bradford District Children’s Social Care, or providing services on behalf of the Council, are held accountable for making sure that practice standards are met at all times.

Practice standards are informed by statutory guidance and regulation. They are based on evidence from the elements of practice which are most likely to lead to good quality services and positive outcomes for children, young people and their families.

The College of Social Work set out standards of conduct for all social workers, which is set out in their Professional Capabilities Framework.

Case File Audits are an intrinsic part of the quality assurance process and examine social care practice against 10 social care practice standards through questions within the audit; these Practice standards will inform our Single and Multi-Agency auditing process.

In line with external (Ofsted) inspection methodology where possible auditors should complete the audit live with the allocated social worker.


2.1 Practice Standards that inform Single Agency Case File Audits Table 4 Standard 1- Case records have an up to date case summary, chronology and genogram.

Is the case summary up to date with a description of the child? (Including their likes and interests as well as risks).

Are all records up to date and reflective of the voice of the child?

Is there an up to date chronology on the file?( used to analyse the child's lived experience over time)

Is there an accurate genogram on the file which has been completed with the family?

Are statutory visits child focussed and individualised for each child?

Is there evidence of the use of research and reflective practice?

Is there a good description of the child and their journey?

Is there evidence of a signs of safety approach?

Standard 2- All children will have a clear assessment which reflects a clear picture of the child’s lived experience, wishes and feelings.

Are the child and family involved in assessment? ( for example, use of Signs of Safety children's direct work tools and scaling questions)

Does the child have an up to date, timely assessment?

Has the child been seen and their wishes and feelings informed the assessment? (using Signs of Safety tools or adapted approaches to communication, for example)

Is there evidence of analysis of identified risks and is this clearly linked to the rationale for recommendations and decisions?

Is there evidence of the use of case mapping with a clear danger statement?


- Is there concrete and recent evidence that the child is safe, specific risks/dangers addressed and welfare promoted

Standard 3 – All children will have a clear safety plan which explains their needs, outcomes and agreed actions with a clear bottom line.

Does the child have a SMART, up to date safety plan? - Use of Case Mapping and 3 Column and scaling questions to aid analysis and Safety Planning

Is the plan individualised for each child?

Have the parents/carers been actively involved in the planning process? (for example, use of children's direct work tools and scaling questions or Outcome Stars)

Is there evidence of multi-agency planning?

- Is the plan written in accordance to local guidance?

- Is there evidence of step up and down based on recent observation of lived experience of child and concrete actions needed by the step up or down.

Standard 4 – All children will have a timely review to monitor progress of plans.

Has the child been seen within statutory timescales?

Have review meetings been held within statutory timescales and have clear actions and timescales?

Does the plan directly track areas of initial worry/danger statements?

Is there evidence of appropriate multi agency engagement?

Is there evidence of IRO/ CP chair challenge and tracking?

Has the child been involved in the review process? (for example, use of children's direct work tools and scaling questions and Outcome Stars)

Standard 5- The case will evidence child focussed practice and the voice of the child

Is there evidence of child focussed practice


will be clear throughout. Children will be spoken to directly and engaged to enable their views to inform all case planning.

throughout the file?

Is there evidence of direct work having taken place (i.e. use of three houses, safety house or wizards and fairy’s or other direct work tool)?

Is the social worker able to give a clear description of the child and their journey?

Do statutory visits reflect the voice of the child and include clear observation of the child at home and with family members?

Has the social worker developed a good relationship with child and parents/carers?

Has the impact of direct work been evaluated?

Standard 6- The impact of the help provided to the child will be clear.

Are improvements in the child’s life clear as a result of CSC involvement? (specific danger statement/risks reduced and safety increased.)

Are all assessments, plans and interventions based on clear analysis of all the information available about the child?

Have the child’s life chances improved as a result of SW involvement?

Has the child been offered an advocate resulting in a positive impact?

Have the child’s views on this been sought as part of the audit process?

Standard 7- the impact of the help provided to the family will be clear.

Are improvements in the family’s life clear as a result of social work involvement?

Is there good engagement by parents resulting in improvements in the home situation?

Do the parents have a clear perspective of their parenting and the impact on their child/ren

Has the family views been sought as part of 6

Davina Hartley 020217 Guidance for Childrens Specialist Services Case File Audit

planning and assessment and the audit process?

Standard 8 – Every case will contain evidence of monthly supervision that is reflective in nature.

Is there evidence of recorded monthly supervision?

Are actions reviewed at supervision?

Is there evidence of reflective practice and challenge with a focus on relationships and task?

Is there evidence of the use of signs of safety approach – i.e. group/peer supervision?

Rational for decision making clearly recorded (for example use of case mapping and 3 column analysis)?

Standard 9- Every case will contain management oversight ensuring tasks have been completed to the required quality standard

Is there evidence of clear management oversight throughout the case file?

Is the rationale for decision making clearly recorded?

Do all key documents include clear evidence of management sign off?

Standard 10 – Every case will have a clear case closure or handover recorded.

Is there evidence of a handover/ closure summary which identifies which needs have been met and reasons for handover or closure?

Is there evidence that the child and their family have been involved in decisions and are aware of the outcome?

Is there evidence that other involved agencies have been informed and, in the case of closure, that any unmet needs have been identified and ‘stepped down' for continuing work from those agencies?

Are there clear and concrete goals for stepping down or continuation of work?


3.0 Audit Process

A number of audit tools have been developed around Bradford’s practice standards and include an element of evaluation of the signs of safety approach which is becoming embedded in practice and intrinsic to the way in which we work with families and children.

The single agency audits routinely assess both qualitative and quantitative aspects of case management to ensure that the best possible outcomes for children and young people are being achieved. Both qualitative information and quantitative information are required to ensure a holistic quality management approach is delivered.

Qualitative auditing: considers the quality of the information and recording on the child’s file, the quality of decision making, risk assessment and analysis and whether good practice is evidenced. It assesses the outcome for the child.

Quantitative auditing: considers whether the record is up to date, contains all the relevant documentation and that this has been properly completed within timescales.

Moderation: moderation must be built into any audit process to monitor the quality of the auditing being carried out. This can be established through a process of a quality assurance whereby the moderator re-audits a random selection of cases already audited. This ensures consistency is achieved within the audit process.

3.1 Audit schedule and feedback:

Every month the cases to be audited for the children’s social care single agency routine audit are selected randomly from all the cases open to children social care (MASH, CSC Long Term Teams, CCHDT ) on the 25th of the month by the Office of the Chief Executive. This occurs every month except December where there is no case audit.

The Youth Offending Team, Fostering and Adoption team and Early Help Team undertake monthly routine audits using audit tools specific to their service.

Audit: Every Team Manager, Service Manager and Assistant Director within Childrens Social Care completes one audit per month.

Heads Of Service will re audit any cases found to be inadequate at next but one audit loop (8 weeks).

Moderation: Childrens services director (1) will re-audit (moderate) one case per monthChief executive (1) will re-audit (moderate) one case per month Principal social worker (1) moderates two cases per monthQuality Assurance Worker (1) moderates two/three cases per month. This should be 10% of all cases audited per month.

Team managers will audit cases from teams they are not directly responsible for. This forms our Peer Audit process.

Auditors are required to audit recent practice that has occurred within the 12 months immediately preceding the audit only.


The audit tool includes a judgement about the quality of the casework based on Ofsted grades and time limited actions to address deficiencies. The implementation of actions is monitored by each Team Manager and is time limited (maximum 10 working days) to ensure actions are carried out in a timely way. If any immediate risks to a child are identified these need to be immediately raised with the HOS, the case holder and the team manager as a case alert and actioned immediately. There is also a facility to include learning points for those actions which are not case specific or where cases have subsequently been closed. There is a central system for monitoring actions and learning points.

Completed audits are discussed with the appropriate Managers and Social Worker and saved on the child’s case file. It is critical that auditors ensure that what is recorded on the Child’s case record is appropriate information. This information may be used in future to support legal proceedings and may also be accessed by the child should they require access to their records at a later stage.

A schedule of Audit Feedback compliments the audit timetable. A Manager will meet with the case holder and explore with them the core elements from the audit template, holding a reflective ‘support & challenge’ conversation. This will be recorded as supervision and be headlined as Supervision/Response to Audit. Examples of outstanding practice as well as areas for improvement will be recognised as part of this process and fed back to senior managers.

All case alerts will be immediately sent to the HOS, and any safety concerns will be addressed immediately. Any case found to be inadequate will be re-audited by the HOS at the next but one audit loop (8 weeks). This will ensure that the audit action plan has been completed and that the case is no longer inadequate.


Auditor: (21 working days to complete Audit)Accesses the audit form and grades each section

using audit guidance:General recording- case description and the child’s history

Assessment and AnalysisChilds Plan

Planning and ReviewThe voice of the childImpact on the child

Impact on the familySupervision/management oversight

gives an overall grade for the case file.

Moderator: moderates / re-

audits completed audit

LCS “Alert” goes to

Social Worker: (10 working days) makes any necessary amendments to

case file

Team Manager: (2 days) Checks file and finalises audit

FINISH

Yes (audit can be finalised)

Moderator:is the audit good enough?

No (Audit is returned to auditor)

Moderation? No (audit can be finalised

Yes (case manager sends to moderator)

4.0 LCS Audit Model – “How it Works”


Administrator goes onto each file and adds the auditor

Bradford LCS report selects cases for audit

Social Work Manager

Social Worker

LCS “Alert” goes to

Picture guidance on how to access audit form on LCS

Guidance on grading: “Outstanding”, “Good”, “Requires Improvement”, “Inadequate”

START

Team Manager: (1 day) Views audit

If case is graded inadequate at any point a case alert must be sent to the HOS, the case holder and TM. This Case is then re-audited by HOS at next but one audit loop

(8 weeks) to ensure improvement.

5.0 Auditor’s Guidance

Case File Audit Threshold Guidance

This document provides auditors with guidance on how to grade a case file audit to promote consistency of practice between auditors .It is not designed to be a definitive list and auditors must use their own professional judgment when completing and grading an audit.

Auditors are required to audit recent practice that has occurred within the 12 months immediately preceding the audit only.

Auditors should note that audits are undertaken to identify what we are doing well and areas for development .They should therefore help us to consider the impact and outcomes of the work undertaken with children and families. All sections of the audit tool should be completed and if a section is graded inadequate or requires improvement, corrective actions must be identified with clear timescales for completion (Maximum of 10 days to complete actions). There is a separate section to record all actions. A case alert should be sent to the Head Of Service, Team manager and Social worker if a case is deemed to be inadequate. If a child is at risk the auditor MUST notify the social worker and team manager immediately to ensure that corrective actions are carried out as soon as possible. You should NOT wait until you complete your audit.

The audit should be undertaken in discussion with the allocated social worker. This is not only ‘best practice’, but reflects the methodology of external (e.g.: Ofsted) inspectors.

The grades given to all sections should be based on the Ofsted grade descriptions:

Outstanding- Exceedingly good, sustaining improvement makes an exceptional difference.Good- Widespread and common good practice which demonstrably leads to improved outcomes.Requires Improvement- Practice with not enough characteristics of good.Inadequate- Widespread or serious concern. Child at risk of being harmed, no improved outcomes.

At this point (January 2017) auditors should be looking for consistent Signs of Safety practice emerging across our work with children & families. There are examples of when we should be seeing Signs of Safety in practice.

The audit tool will be reviewed again in 12 months when Signs of Safety practice should be more deeply embedded across children's services.

Overall Judgement:

The overall judgment for the file audit will depend on the grading recorded in the sections and professional judgment .The following is a guide only and professional judgment based on the LCS scrutiny, the interview with the social worker and service user should be used to finalise the judgment.


Outstanding- at least 5 sections recorded as outstanding and the other 3 sections good. This grade indicates the best outcomes for the child/young person and the case can be used as best practice. No sections require improvement or inadequate.

Good- at least 5 sections recorded as good with no sections recorded as Inadequate .There has been good outcomes for the child/young person, although there may be some minor actions required.

Requires Improvement- at least 5 sections recorded as requires Improvement. The outcomes for the child /young person could have been better and some actions are required on the case.

Inadequate – at least 5 sections recoded as Inadequate with no good or outstanding. The outcomes for the child/young person should have been better and there are significant actions required to improve practice.

The overall grade must be in inadequate if any significant safeguarding issues have been identified.


Appendix 1: Detailed Audit Grading Guidance

Section 1 General recording- case description and the child’s history

OutstandingExcellent case summary which starts with a rounded description of the child and tells the child’s story (includes their likes and interests as well as risks)

All records are up to date and clearly reflect the voice of the child

Statutory visits are child focused and individualised for each child

Chronology completed and on file and used to analyse the child’s lived experience over time( not LCS generated)

Genogram completed with family and loaded on LCS (identifies extended sources of support)

Social Worker can give an excellent description of the child and their journey

Evidence of the use of research and reflective practice throughout

GoodCase summary is up to date and has description of the child

All records are up to date and reflect the voice of the child

Chronology completed and on the file- LCS generated

Statutory visits are child focused and individualised for each child

Genogram completed with family and loaded on LCS

SW can give good description of the child and their journey

Some evidence of the use of research and reflective practice

Requires ImprovementCase summary is not up to date and does not have a description of the child

Voice of the child is not evident in case recording

Incomplete or no genogram on LCS

Incomplete or no chronology on LCS

InadequateNo case summary or outdated and of poor quality

Recordings are not up to date – gaps in recording

No chronology

No genogram

Serious concerns regarding quality of recording


Section 2- Assessment and AnalysisOutstanding

Evidence that assessment is an on-going process which directly impacts on the decision making, planning and positive outcomes for the child/familyParents and child are fully involved in assessment process and planning (for example use of signs of safety direct work tools and scaling questions)Evidence of good multi- agency working and information sharingChildren are seen and wishes and feelings are sought and recorded (using signs of safety tools and adapted approaches for communication for example) Assessments take into account history, have clear analysis of risk (use of danger statements) and protective factorsEvidence of appropriate professional challenge and critical analysisChild is protected and welfare promotedAssessments completed in a timely mannerGood management oversightUse of case mapping and 3 column and scaling questions to aid analysis and safety planning

GoodChild and parents are involved in assessments (for example use of signs of safety tools)Evidence of good multi -agency working and information sharingChildren are seen and wishes and feelings soughtAssessments take into account history, have clear analysis of risk and protective factorsChild is protected and welfare promotedAssessments completed in a timely mannerEvidence of management oversight

Requires ImprovementChildren not seen and no evidence of wishes and feelingsLack of professional engagement in assessmentsLimited analysis of riskDelay in completing assessmentLack of management oversight

InadequateAssessments not completed in timely mannerChildren not seen and no evidence of wishes and feelingsNo evidence of information sharing between agenciesNo analysis of risk or protective factorsChildren are still at risk of harm


Section 3 – Childs Plan

OutstandingThere is an up to date and relevant plan on the file which has clear, specific, achievable , measurable and time scaled (SMART) actions which directly relate to the assessed and identified needs and risks

The plan is regularly reviewed and up dated and uses clear and simple language

The plan is individualised for each child in sibling group

Child/parents are actively involved in planning process (for example use of direct work tools and scaling questions and/or outcome stars)

There is evidence of multi-agency engagement in planning process

Plan is written in accordance to local guidance

Evidence of step up step down as appropriate based on recent observation of the lived experience of the child and concrete action needed by step up/ step down

Evidence that the plan is leading to positive outcomes for the child

Planning process and review exceeds minimum requirements

GoodThe child’s plan in up to date and meets the needs of the child

Plan is SMART

Plan is individualised for each child in sibling group

Child /parent are actively involved in planning process

Evidence of multi-agency engagement in planning process

Evidence plan is leading to positive outcomes for the child

Plan is written in accordance to local guidance

Evidence of step up and down as appropriate with clear actions required for step up/down

Requires ImprovementThere is some evidence of a plan but it is not SMART

Limited activity is taking place to meet the desired outcomes

Plan is not individualised for each child in sibling group

Child/parent not involved in planning process- worker has not taken reasonable steps to enable and support the child and family to participate in the planning process

Gaps in partnership working

InadequateThere is not an up to date plan on LCSPlan is unclear or serves no purposePlan in not SMARTPlan not individualised for sibling groupLimited evidence of multi-agency engagement in planning process.

Child/parent not involved in planning process. Case is drifting


Section 4 - Planning and Review Section 2- Assessment and Analysis

OutstandingChild is seen/visited above minimum requirements

Review meetings are held within statutory timescales and have clear actions and timescales – they directly track areas of initial worry/ danger statements

Evidence of care planning meetings with multi agency engagement

Quality of minutes of exceptional standard

Distribution of minutes within local procedures/guidance

Evidence of IRO / Child Protection Chair challenge and tracking if appropriate

Child/parents are fully involved in the review process (for example use of children’s direct work tools and scaling questions and or outcome stars

Evidence of regular care planning meetings with good multi -agency engagement

GoodChild seen/visited within statutory timescales

Review meetings held within statutory timescales and have clear actions and timescales

Evidence of care planning meetings with multi-agency engagement

Minutes are distributed within local procedure/guidance

Evidence of IRO / Child Protection Chair challenge and tracking

Child/parents involved in the review process

Evidence of multi-agency contributions to the review process

Requires ImprovementReviews not held within timescales

Delay in distribution of the minutes

Limited engagement of parents and child in review process

Limited evidence of multi-agency engagement in review process

Lack of challenge/tracking by IRO

InadequateNo evidence of reviews being held or care planning meetings

No engagement with child/parent in review process

Lack of multi-agency involvement in the review process

No challenge or tracking by IRO

Drift and delay


Section 5- Voice of the child

OutstandingThe child/young person has been seen regularly and their views, wishes and feelings have been incorporated into assessment, planning and the review process

Evidence of child focussed practice throughout the case file

Evidence of direct work and the use of tools

SW able to give a detailed description of child and their journey

Statutory visits clearly recorded and reflect voice of the child

SW demonstrates good relationship with the child

The child/young person has achievable goals and expectations

Work with the child/parents is of an exceptionally high standard

Use of children’s direct work tools

GoodEvidence of child focussed practice throughout the file

Evidence of direct work taken place

SW able to give a clear description of the child and their journey

Statutory visits reflect the voice of the child

SW is developing a good relationship with the child/parents

The child/young person has been encouraged /or enabled to participate

Requires ImprovementFocus on sibling group and not individual child

Limited evidence of direct work

SW has limited understanding of child’s journey

No reflection of the child’s voice in statutory visits

Child/young person had had limited involvement in the assessment, planning and review process

InadequateSW has not engaged the child/young person in the assessment, planning and review process

No evidence of child focussed practice

No direct work

Voice of child not evident in recordings


Section 6a- Impact-child

OutstandingSignificant improvements in Childs life as a result of SW involvement

Specific danger statement/risk reduced and safety increased

Clear evidence that the Childs life chances have improved significantly

Child has been offered advocacy – resulting in positive impact

SW has clear understanding of future impact and services required

GoodImprovements in Childs life as a result of SW involvement

Life chances have improved as a result of intervention

Child has been offered advocate – resulting in positive impact

Requires ImprovementLimited improvement in Childs situation

Limited evidence of improved life chances

No evidence of the use of advocate

InadequateNo improvement in child situation

No improvement in life chances

No evidence of the use of advocate

Child at risk of harm


Section 6 b Impact family

OutstandingEvidence that the family’s life has improved significantly

Full engagement of parents resulting in positive change

Parents have clear perspective of their parenting and impact on child

Parents acknowledge positive impact

GoodEvidence of improvements in families life

Good engagement by parents resulting in improvements in home situation

Parents have clear perspective of their parenting and impact on child

Requires ImprovementLimited evidence of any positive improvements in family’s life

Parents failing to engage or acknowledging concerns re parenting

InadequateNo improvement in families life

No impact on parenting or concerns


Section 7- Supervision/management oversight

OutstandingEvidence of both formal and informal supervision which is recorded on LCS

Supervision within statutory timescales

Manager reviews, monitors actions outside of formal supervision

Evidence of reflective practice and challenge in supervision with a focus on relationships and tasks

Rationale for decision making clearly recorded in all recordings (for example use of case mapping and 3 column analysis)

Excellent management oversight throughout the file

GoodEvidence of formal supervision within timescales and recorded on LCS

Actions reviewed at each supervision

Evidence of reflective practice and challenge

Rational for decision making clearly recorded

Evidence of management oversight when required

Requires ImprovementEvidence of formal supervision but not within timescales

Records of supervision do not show how the case has progressed or identify clear actions

Limited evidence of reflective practice or challenge

Lack of management oversight

InadequateSupervision not present or not within timescales

No evidence of reflective practice or challenge

No evidence of management oversight

Case is drifting with no challenge

Rational for decision making not recorded


Section 8- Case Closure/Handover (where applicable)

OutstandingExcellent handover or closing summary which identifies the needs that have been met and clear reasons for case closure or handover

Evidence that child and parent/carer have been involved in the decision and are fully aware of the reasons for case closure/ handover (for example use of safety planning/mapping)

Evidence that all involved agencies including the referrer have been fully consulted with and engaged in the decision for case closure/ handover

Any unmet needs have been identified and a clear plan is in place to manage these following case closure/ handover

GoodA good handover or closing summary which identifies which needs have been met and reasons for handover/closure.Evidence that the child and parent / carer have been involved in decisions and are aware of the reasons for handover / closure.Evidence that other involved agencies have been informed and, in the case of closure, that any unmet needs have been identified and ‘stepped down' for continuing work from those agencies.Clear and concrete goals for stepping down or continuation of work

Requires ImprovementAn incomplete or poor handover or closing summary which does not identify needs met and/or reasons for handover/ closure

Child/parent carer not involved in decisions and not aware of outcomes

Other agencies not informed

No goals for stepping down or future work

InadequateNo handover or closing summary

Child/parent carer not involved in decisions and not aware of outcomes

Other agencies not informed

No goals for stepping down or future work

Serious concerns regarding quality of recording

Overall Judgment

The overall judgment for the file audit will depend on the grading recorded in the sections and professional judgment .The following is a guide only and professional judgment based on the LCS scrutiny, the interview with the social worker and service user should be used to finalise the judgment.


Outstanding- at least 5 sections recorded as outstanding and the other 3 sections good. This grade indicates the best outcomes for the child/young person and the case can be used as best practice. No sections require improvement or inadequate.

Good- at least 5 sections recorded as good with no sections recorded as Inadequate .There has been good outcomes for the child/young person, although there may be some minor actions required.

Requires Improvement- at least 5 sections recorded as requires Improvement. The outcomes for the child /young person could have been better and some actions are required on the case.

Inadequate – at least 5 sections recoded as Inadequate with no good or outstanding. The outcomes for the child/young person should have been better and there are significant actions required to improve practice.

The overall grade must be in inadequate if any significant safeguarding issues have been identified.


proceduresonline.com€¦ · web viewboth qualitative information and quantitative information are...

Documents