2.3 Primary Care (GP Practices) - Children 7 2.4 Work within the Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) 9 2.5 Statutory Inspections and Reviews 11 2.6 Inter-agency Safeguarding Children’s Arrangements 12 2.7 Serious Case Reviews/Learning Reviews (SCRs/LLRs) 14 2.8 Key Challenges for all 4 Tees Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs) 15 2.9 Tees Child Death Overview Panel (CDOP) 16 2.10 Key Challenges and Achievements in 2014/15 18 2.11 Key objectives for Safeguarding Children and LAC 2015/16 19 3. Safeguarding Adults 20 3.1 National context, legislation and statutory guidance 20 3.2 Adult Safeguarding and Commissioned Services 24 3.3 Primary Care (GP Practices) - Adults 26 3.4 Work within the Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) 27 3.5 Peer Reviews 29 3.6 Interagency Safeguarding Adults Arrangements 29 3.7 Adult Case Reviews, Serious Case Reviews, Lesson Learned and Management Reviews 31 3.8 Key challenges for the TSAB and LEGs 33 3.9 Domestic Homicide Reviews 33 3.10 Mental Health Homicide Reviews 34 3.11 Key Challenges and Achievements in 2014/15 34 3.12 Key Objectives for Safeguarding Adults 2015/16 35
meetings, Executive Committee meetings, sub-groups of the LSCBs and development sessions. HAST CCG and ST CCG have made a financial contribution to each LSCB during 2014-15 as detailed in Table 2 below. Financial contribution by CCG to their respective LSCBs Hartlepool & Stockton on Tees CCG Hartlepool LSCB £31,519 Stockton-on-Tees LSCB £53,055 South Tees CCG Middlesbrough LSCB £41,846 Redcar & Cleveland LSCB £33,463 2: CCG Financial contributions to the LSCBs The Designated Nurse has continued as Vice Chair of all 4 Tees Learning and Improving Practice Sub Group (formerly SCR Sub Committees) in 2014/15. The SCO remains a member of all 4 Tees LSCBs Performance Sub Groups (or equivalent). These groups are primarily aimed at monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of what is done by Board Partners individually and collectively to safeguard and promote the welfare of children as stipulated in Regulation 5 of the LSCBs Regulations 2006. The SCO’s attendance at these groups provides oversight regarding all health providers’ contribution to operational safeguarding practice; the SCO also shares information from Primary Care (GP Practices) allowing triangulation between the GP support visits and impact of safeguarding children training. It also provides an opportunity to identify issues regarding systems processes. For example, in 2013/14 Stockton LSCB reported compliance for submission of reports for Initial and Review Case Conferences by GPs as 60%. However the SCO identified that the requests for the reports had, in some instances, not been issued to the correct GP and therefore not returned. Focused work has been undertaken during 2014/15 to address the weaknesses within the Local Authorities/Primary Care systems to prevent this issue being repeated. This has particularly centred on introducing secure email addresses to facilitate the sending and receipt of conference reports. Each LSCB has mechanisms for engaging children and young people in the work of the Board which ultimately influences the work of the Board. This includes ‘Junior Safeguarding Boards’ and ‘Young Inspectors’ groups. The Safeguarding Children Team for the CCGs ensure this very important ‘voice’ of children and young people influences other appropriate aspects of their work of the Safeguarding Team within the CCGs.
Redcar and Cleveland 3 National care provider: Unannounced inspection by CQC identified concerns relating to medication, care and welfare, documentation. Multiagency action plan – progress monitored, improvements progressed The Care Quality Commission (CQC) issued warning notices. Active monitoring of provider remains.(as at 31.3.15) Redcar and Cleveland Local care provider : Concerns identified included, leadership, management, poor standards of care documentation, and care delivery. Joint action plan developed, joint monitoring review visits undertaken between CCG and LA. Evidence of improvement demonstrated. This resulted in routine monitoring of the provider via LA contract management processes. Redcar and Cleveland Local care provider: Unannounced inspection by CQC identified concerns relating medication, records, cooperation with other providers, care and welfare and nutritional needs. Provider demonstrated sustained improvements, as part of its action plan, evidenced by joint visits undertaken by ST CCG and the LA. This resulted in routine monitoring of the provider via LA contract management processes.