Audits - core & thematic Performance data National & local Inspections Peer reviews Serious Case Reviews & Internal Learning Reviews Appreciative Inquiries Practice Week Ofsted Readiness Week Annual Report of the Local Safeguarding Board Feedback from Independent Reviewing Officer/Child Protection chairs Internal Panel Processes such Care & Resource, Fostering & Adoption Private Fostering Annual Report Feedback from children, parents and carers. Complaints & compliments Children in Care Council - Positive Journey’s Employer Health Checks Staff feedback. For example Exit interviews, Keep in Touch meetings. Practitioner Perspective Panel Supervision, Probation, Appraisal. CADCASS & Legal feedback from proceedings Multi agency partner feedback Bexley is a Signs of Safety Authority and we have designed our audit tools and learning framework within a Signs of Safety matrix of good practice. The following documents and processes underpin our Quality Assurance framework. 1. Children’s Service Improvement Plan 2. Audit Schedule 3. Signs of Safety Audit Tool 4. Practice Standards 4. The performance cycle What activities will be quality assured? The annual schedule of auditing activity will routinely contribute to measuring core areas of practice: Assessments of need and risk to children and young people Assessments of adult carers Plans and the effectiveness of intervention Direct working relationships with children, young people & their families Partnership working and effectiveness of multi-agency meetings & reviews Report writing and case recording Management oversight and decision making (includes supervision) In addition to the above there will be specific areas that will periodically require a ‘deep dive’ in depth review. These areas might be identified as a result of analysis of patterns and themes emerging from the regular auditing activity, notable issues and/or changes raised through performance data, triggered by a complaint, a management review or changes in legislation and regulations. Benchmarking
Referral responded to promptly (within 24 hours) and decisions appropriate to identified need. Case recordings are written in plain, jargon free language that would enable a service user to understand their story, should they request to view their files at a later date. ) Identifies whether appropriate to work as CIN/CP or NFA. There is strong evidence of the child and family involvement in the development of the plan. This should include family network meetings; outlining family and friend support with specific actions for supporting the child’s safety and wellbeing. Children are actively involved where they have the ability to do so, including attending meetings or chairing their own reviews”?) Supervision reviews actions of previous supervision and these are completed. Records up to date and fit for purpose Decision making takes accounts of previous referrals/contacts Files for looked after children include a recent photo. Assessment includes some analysis regarding multi-agency context and this information is used to inform decision making. The plan is progressing and meeting the child’s needs. Where there is evidence the plan is not meeting the child’s needs, the reasons for this are explored and changes made if needed Records of reviews are comprehensive and provide detailed analysis of the issues and actions that are required to meet outcomes, including timescales. There is evidence of reflective tools such as appreciative inquiry or case mapping. Manager’s risk analysis & rationale for decision evidenced and appropriate for referral information and history. Child seen alone (where appropriate), spoken to and their views recorded and reflected in assessment. Assessment demonstrates a sense of the child. There is evidence of direct work undertaken with the child to ascertain what life is like for them. The case file recording tells the child’s story and evidences progress.
Evidence recorded on LiquidLogic to demonstrate case allocated to qualified social worker promptly and clear expectations of what is required are recorded. Diversity and disability issues addressed. Perhaps- Diversity and disability are considered with respect for strengths in diversity and support to address any challenges arising out of diversity and disability. There is clear evidence of discussion and decision making around transitions. Assessments reviewed signed by Manager within timescales. Evidence of some quality assurance by Manager. There is a clear trajectory for the work with the family to be completed (it is evident that plan is focused and begins with the end in mind) Assessment shared with parents/carers promptly and feedback sought. Words and pictures explanations are used and the plan shared with the child Outcome of the assessment is shared with parents/carers and child/young person (appropriate to age and understanding). Feedback is sought.
Referral – Requires Improvement look like… Basic Information – Requires Improvement look like… Assessment – Requires Improvement look like… Planning – Requires Improvement look like… Review – Requires Improvement looks like… Management Oversight – Requires Improvement look like… Referral gave enough evidence that it was appropriate to refer to social care. LL recording is contemporaneous, concise and sets out clear plans, which are measureable and understandable. Assessment identifies some strengths/safety and areas of concern, analysis is limited and may not include key members of the household (including fathers and partners) An up-to-date Care plan is in place (including a PEP, health plan, placement plan and permanency plan for looked after children), setting out the child/YP’s needs and how they will be met. Plan (CIN, CP or Looked After) have been reviewed in accordance with statutory/procedural requirements Supervision has been taking place in accordance with supervision policy. Referral gives some indication of areas of strength and safety for family. Danger statements, safety goals, and scaling are evident on file but not clear and concise addressing specific behaviours Assessment identifies a case plan which does not fully address risk/need. The plan is reviewed regularly and within statutory timescales. Parents/carers/child/YP and professionals are invited to reviews and their attendance supported. There is some evidence of using Signs of Safety (ie. three columns) but not an in-depth analysis using the framework Referral on agreed format, but not all relevant information recorded. LL records provide some evidence of quality assurance activity on records. There is some consideration of family/friends network support, but this not fully explored to enlist their help and support for the child/family The plan is more focused on tasks and services rather than “who, within the family and friends network, will do what in the children’s day to day life to keep them safe and well” Review meetings are focussed on the child/YP’s needs and encourage their engagement. Supervision decisions are recorded on the child’s electronic file but limited evidence of reflection and evaluation of work carried out.
the intended readers Assessment shared with parents/carers and child/young person (appropriate to age and understanding). Outcome of assessment shared with parents/carers and child/young person Referral looks like… Basic Information – Inadequate looks like… Assessment – Inadequate looks like… Planning – Inadequate looks like… Review – Inadequate looks like… Management Oversight – Inadequate looks like… Referral had some gaps with vital information missing or should have been made earlier. LL recording is out of date, unfocussed, and does not provide sufficiently clear information to support decision making. Assessment does not identify strengths and areas of concern and provides little or no analysis. Does not include all members of family. There is no care plan – including the absence of any of the following (PEP, Health Plan, Placement Plan, Permanency Plan (from 2nd LAC review). Plan (CIN, CP or looked after) has not been reviewed in accordance with Statutory/ procedural requirements. Supervision has not been taking place in accordance with supervision policy. Areas of strength/safety box is left blank (it is highly unlikely that a child/family has no strengths to be noted) Danger statements, safety goals, and scaling are not recorded on file Risk to child not considered. The plan is a list of tasks to complete and places to go rather than a plan of who will do what in the child’s day to day life to help them be safe and well. Key family members/child/YP or professionals are sometimes not invited to review meetings. Supervision records do not provide outline of decision making, have no evidence of reflection or analysis and/or fail to address concerns. Consent is missing when it would be reasonable for it to have been obtained or rationale for not obtaining consent is not documented. No evidence of quality assurance activity on the child’s LL records. Assessment uses jargonistic language (ie. developmental milestones, inappropriate behaviour, significant harm) and is not written in language that is plain and clear to parents/carers. Family network meetings have not taking place as part of assessment or planning Review meetings are not meeting the child’s needs and do not act to encourage the child/YP’s engagement. Supervision has not been effective in ensuring referrals and actions are effectively progressed.
No evidence to indicate consideration been given to previous contacts/referrals Case file recording is difficult to understand, inconsistent, or incomplete. Assessment does not outline a clear plan. The plan has not been reviewed despite this being required. Review records are insufficiently detailed to enable clear planning and action Lack of recorded QA activity. No risk analysis evident and rationale for decision making not recorded Doesn’t identify if CP/CIN appropriate. Where required, there is no evidence of a pathway plan. Safety plan is not reviewed on each visit to ensure it is being enacted to meet the child’s need for safety or is not revised if not meeting the need (after exploring issues of what is getting in the way) Supervision does not include the principles of Signs of Safety nor is there an expectation of work being undertaken within the framework, including SoS tools (as appropriate to each child/family) No evidence on LL to demonstrate case allocated to qualified social worker, delay in allocation or case not allocated. No context to referral included, despite clear indication that other agencies are involved. There is no evidence of the child/ YP, their family, or network (when appropriate) being involved in planning and/or decision-making Chronology is none existent or contains cut and pasted records that are not relevant to the purpose of the chronology Safety/risk, harm/danger, and day to day safety not clearly reviewed/recorded No evidence to suggest child seen, or where they have been seen, no evidence to suggest that they have been spoken to on their own. The care plan is drifting and not being progressed Supervision is directive only and does not use appreciative inquiry and solution focused questioning No evidence of diversity or disability issues having been considered. There is no or insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the child / YP is being visited. Assessments not signed off by Manager. Recording on LL case file is limited/absent with respect to key issues, including visits to the child Assessment not shared with family. Outcome not shared with family.