Issue - meetings

5.1       Reg Hooke, Chair of the East Sussex Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB), introduced the item by providing the Committee with an overview of the role of the LSCB. 

5.2       The Committee then discussed the findings set out in the Serious Case Review report relating to ‘Child M’.  The key issues discussed are set out below:  

·        Sharing information and recording risk assessments.   

A broad area of learning identified in the report relates to how agencies share information and how risk assessments are recorded.   Members noted that issues relating to these two tasks have been cited in a number of other Serious Case Reviews (SCRs).    As result, the Committee asked for clarification as to what steps are being taken to ensure agencies embed these lessons so that key facts relating to vulnerable young people are clearly communicated, understood and acted on.  

In response, Douglas Sinclair (Head of Children's Safeguards & Quality Assurance) informed the Committee that the Department has reconfigured its services so as to improve how information is recorded and appropriately shared.   This has resulted in the deployment of a ‘Single Point of Advice’ (SPOA) system which deals with all referrals into either Children’s Social Care or Early Help.  The Department has also developed a multi-agency services approach.  This means staff within the Department work closely with colleagues from the Police and specialist health visitors in two Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hubs (MASHs).

The Committee were also informed that the LSCB have requested that the Department conducts a review into the impact of SCRs undertaken over the last five years.   The review will focus on establishing whether the recommendations set out in SCRs have led to the improvements in performance they were intended to bring about.   The LSCB hopes to produce its report by the end of 2017.    Following a request from Members, an undertaking was given to incorporate the findings of the review into next year’s annual Serious Case Review report to the Committee.

·        Time taken to complete the Coroner’s Inquest.  

The Committee were concerned at the length of time it took for the Inquest into the death of Child M to be completed.    In response the Committee were informed that the inquest was performed by a Coroner from a different local authority.  The LSCB share the concerns of the Committee at this delay and consequently this matter is being discussed with the relevant local authority.

·        Role of Acute Hospitals and contact with young People who overdose.   

In response to a query raised by the Committee, Reg Hooke informed Members that the LSCB is aware that the number of young people admitted to acute hospitals as the result of a drug overdose is higher than expected.   As a result, this issue has been identified as a specific topic which the Board is looking to investigate further with relevant agencies.   Members were also informed that a national scheme called the ‘Child Protection Information System’ will be rolled out locally soon.  The system is designed to ensure that relevant health and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5

5.1   The Committee asked at its previous meeting for the Local Safeguarding

Children Board (LSCB) to report back on the outcomes from the Serious Case Reviews it had most recently completed.  Councillor Field introduced the report by clarifying it was not the role of the Committee to revisit the subject matter of the reviews.  Instead the Committee’s role was to focus on and consider the recommendations and learning identified in the report.

5.2       The Director of Children’s Services agreed to provide on an annual basis a report to the Committee on the LSCB’s serious case reviews.  The Director also agreed that amendments to the format of future serious case review reports would be considered in the light of the Committee’s comments.

5.3       The Director then highlighted the LSCB’s role in holding all relevant agencies to account for their learning from serious case reviews; that similarly each individual agency has its own governance structure in terms of looking at learning and actions and that the role of the Children’s Services Scrutiny Committee is an important part of that process.   Despite the publicity the cases considered by the review process had generated, officers were still duty bound to maintain the confidentially of the relevant parties at all times. 

5.4       The key responsibilities of the LSCB with regard to serious case reviews, the processes it must follow and the constraints the Board operate under when publishing reports were then summarized by Reg Hooke, Chair of the LSCB.   These points included:

·         that it is a statutory duty of the LSCB to conduct a serious case review where a child has either died or has been seriously injured and it is suspected there has been abuse or neglect;

·         the East Sussex Safeguarding Board has a case review sub group, of which serious case reviews form a small part of the workload.   It is via this sub-group that recommendations are made to the Chair of the LSCB as to whether a serious case review should take place. All cases, whether single or multi agency are considered; and

·         whilst recent serious case reviews have been published, a fundamental responsibility of the Board is to determine the content of any published report.   The Board have a duty to ensure that any published reports do not contain information which may identify individuals.   Reports are also not published until the full serious case review and the LCSB scrutiny role have been completed.   

5.5       Douglas Sinclair, Head of Children's Safeguards & Quality Assurance then took the Committee through a presentation on the two serious case reviews that were before them. Details of these cases, learnings and recommendations are contained within the report.  

Comments and Questions

5.6    The Committee welcomed the report and the opportunity to comment on the learning and recommendations.   A central issue for the Committee was whether it had been provided with sufficient information to enable it to perform its scrutiny role effectively.  For example, the Committee wanted more specific information about the uptake and proper implementation of individual recommendations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5