| |
Centre for Policy on Ageing | |
 | |
|
On self-neglect and safeguarding adult reviews
— diminishing returns or adding value? | | Author(s) | Michael Preston-Shoot |
| Journal title | Journal of Adult Protection, vol 19, no 2, 2017 |
| Publisher | Emerald, 2017 |
| Pages | pp 53-66 |
| Source | www.emeraldinsight.com/loi/jap |
| Keywords | Neglect [care] ; Self care capacity ; Protection [vulnerable adults] ; Case work ; Research. |
| Annotation | The purpose of this paper was twofold: firstly, to update the core data set of self-neglect serious case reviews (SCRs) and safeguarding adult reviews (SARs), and accompanying thematic analysis; and secondly, to respond to the critique in the Wood Report of SCRs by exploring the degree to which the reviews scrutinised could transform and improve the quality of adult safeguarding practice. Thematic analysis within and recommendations from reviews have tended to focus on the micro context, namely, what takes place between individual practitioners, their teams and adults who self-neglect. This level of analysis enables an understanding of local geography. However, there are other wider systems that impact on and influence this work. If review findings and recommendations are to fully answer the question 'why', systemic analysis should appreciate the influence of national geography. Review findings and recommendations may also be used to contest the critique of reviews, namely, that they fail to engage practitioners, are insufficiently systemic and of variable quality, and generate repetitive findings from which lessons are not learned. Answering the question 'why' is a significant challenge for SARs. Different approaches have been recommended, some rooted in systems theory. The critique of SCRs challenges those now engaged in SARs to reflect on how transformational change can be achieved to improve the quality of adult safeguarding policy and practice. The paper extends the thematic analysis of available reviews that focus on work with adults who self-neglect, further building on the evidence base for practice. The paper also contributes new perspectives to the process of conducting SARs by using the analysis of themes and recommendations within this data set to evaluate the critique that reviews are insufficiently systemic, fail to engage those involved in reviewed cases and in their repetitive conclusions demonstrate that lessons are not being learned. (JL). |
| Accession Number | CPA-170421216 A |
| Classmark | QNR: CA: CA3G: IGA: 3A |
Data © Centre for Policy on Ageing |
|
| ...from the Ageinfo database published by Centre for Policy on Ageing. |
| |
|