Where it is suspected that a crime has been committed the police must be contacted to agree how to proceed before further action is taken. There should be a discussion of preliminary findings between the DSM, Safeguarding, Quality and Governance consultant and team manager to determine whether to escalate the concerns to the LSE process. The decision to proceed to the LSE process should be made by the relevant DSM. “Pause and review” – what is the most appropriate response? Proceed to LSE or QOCM? If the decision is taken Not to proceed to an LSE process, please refer to the Adults’ Health and Care QOCM Framework policy - 3.2 Stage two – Proceed to LSE If the decision is taken to proceed to an LSE process then the following checklist should be used to assist in preparation for the LSE safeguarding meeting: NB – Prior to the LSE meeting, immediate actions should already have been agreed and actioned and initial plans should be in place before the meeting (refer to sec 3.1). Priority should have been given to individuals who may have been subjected to abuse, including the requirement to identify any necessary action to safeguard other adult(s) at risk. Identify who will chair the meeting and who needs to be invited. The chair must be either the relevant Service Manager, Safeguarding, Quality and Governance Consultant or a more senior manager and invitations should be co-ordinated by the chair A list of invitees with contact details (refer to sec 3.4) Identify initial information to be requested shared and with whom. Request a list of all adults at risk, their commissioners and family details from the provider. Adults’ Health and Care Named Lead Coordinator to create a database with this information (template- Appendix 9) Each agency to have a nominated lead – this is crucial in reducing disruptions to the service provider and provides consistent communication. Adults’ Health and Care Named Lead Coordinator should start the LSE chronology. This will be on hantsfile, a link should be added to provider view. The chronology should be completed by the team manager, senior practitioner and Safeguarding, Quality and Governance consultant involved. (template- Appendix 8). Adults’ Health and Care Named Lead Coordinator to collate all section 42 enquiries/safeguarding concerns on a database. This will be on hantsfile, completed by the team manager, senior practitioner and safeguarding, quality and governance consultant involved (template- Appendix 10).
Appendix 7 – Adults’ Health and Care response to CQC enforcement action Appendix 8 – LSE chronology Appendix 9 – Summary of adults at risk, commissioners, NOK, GP. Appendix 10 – Summary of section 42 enquiries and safeguarding concerns Appendix 11 – Glossary and Acronyms
Appendix 9 – Summary of adults at risk, commissioners, next of kin, GP LSE – Summary of all adults at risk and agencies involved Provider – <insert name> Date started – <insert date> No Name AIS No Commissioner / key team where known GP practice NoK details Date last reviewed by commissioner
Appendix 10 – Summary of section 42 enquiries and safeguarding concerns LSE – Summary of section 42 enquiries and safeguarding concerns Provider – <insert name> Date started – <insert date> Alert/ Date Initials & AIS Safeguarding allegation Lead investigator / meetings Outcome / feedback MCA update and family feedback Open section 42 enquiry cases Alleged neglect by the Provider – Example – concern received from CQC; re wound care, weight loss, bruises. Commissioner: Hampshire County Council funded Social worker: e;g Strategy discussion/meeting held: Outcome: MCA: Example- Does not have capacity to make a decision about care and treatment Family: contact made and involved where relevant. Consider advocacy Alleged neglect by the provider Commissioner: Social worker: Outcome: MCA: Family : Alleged acts of omission / neglect. Self funded: Social worker: Outcome MCA: Family: