The Care Act 2014 – The Major Changes in Safeguarding Adults

In this essay I will be discussing one major change that was introduced by the Care Act 2014 which was the way adults were safeguarded. The term ‘safeguarding’ is used to describe a wide range of duties, measures and powers that are across the criminal justice, health, housing and social care sectors. Research states safeguarding means to protect an adult’s right to live in a safe environment which is free from abuse and neglect. This involves professionals and other individuals working together to prevent and stop both the risks and experience of abuse or neglect. Also to ensure that the adult’s wellbeing is promoted and to consider the service users views, wishes and feelings when deciding on any action. Since the Care Act 2014 has come into place there have been many changes that has impacted safeguarding practice, which are guidance’s such as making safeguarding personal. This enables practitioners to have a positive approach towards service users, which engages them in their safeguarding situation. Another change that influences safeguarding under the Care Act 2014 is the strength based perspective which is used to help protect the individual from harm. It focuses on the situation that the service user has, the client’s vulnerabilities, strengths, and the qualities that the service user has. This essay will also include the implications of this during practice. Prior to the Care Act 2014 there was not a set way for local authorities to assess safeguarding, now there is. This will also be included as well as how service users can manage risk. Throughout this essay I will be discussing a case study which shows how social workers’ failings in social work impacted the safety and risk of two service user’s.

Prior to the Care Act 2014, safeguarding practice used personalization as the center stage for practice for over a decade. Personalization is a social care approach which states that every person who receives support, whether provided by statuary service or funded by themselves, will have choice and control over how it is shaped around support in care settings. Personalization is about the dignity and well-being of the individual. The Care Act 2014 came into effect in April 2015 it replaced the previous laws in regards to carers and people being cared for. This act outlines how local authorities should carry out carer’s assessments and needs assessments. Also looks into how local authorities should determine who is eligible for support, and what the charges should be for residential and community care. This act is mainly for adults in need of care and support. However there are provisions for the transition of children in need of care and support and young carers. But there is guidance on this in the Children and Families Act 2014. Prior to the Care Act statuary services were responsible for safeguarding for many years but there was no clear laws behind this. Therefore it remained unclear as to who is responsible for what in practise.

One of the guidance’s that are under the Care Act 2014 for safeguarding is to “Making safeguarding personal (MSP)”. This means safeguarding should be person-led and outcome focused. In this conversation they will be given ways on how best to respond to safeguarding which develops involvement, choice and control. As well as improving the service user’s quality of life, wellbeing and safety. There has been a recent case which showed a social worker had failed to safeguard his client by not attending discharge meetings from hospital and not being able to put together a care plan that would suit the client. Research shows that the practitioner had admitted he was not competent for the role and did let the client down. This case study does show that this is one of many practitioners in social work that felt that he was under pressure at work. But despite this he did not reach out for help and support which lead to him failing his role and this resulted a significant risk on the service user too (Haynes 2018). This shows the social worker had failed to meet the policies around safeguarding such as ‘Making safeguarding personal’ and had failed in following the Care Act 2014. The reason for this is because when he did have a meeting with the service user, the service user did not answer the door to him. But the practitioner did not follow up with the client or try other ways to contact the service user. For example by letter, text, or via a third party such as a family member. Following on from the guidance of MSP it states that the practitioner should promote choice, control and involvement in their case. But based on this case study this was not achieved amongst other things such as ensuring that the service user is safe when she is discharged from hospital.

According to the case study it states that the practitioner was given another case that was discussed in this article. He was assigned to an investigation to look into as the service user was at risk as the client had autism and emotionally unstable personality disorder. This referral was made so that the appropriate care plan and support is put into place to assist the service user. However the practitioner had failed to look into this and did not conduct the investigation. When he was questioned about this he did not give a reason as to why he did this. Research states MSP is not for the local authority to use but it is for everyone. This includes everyone who is involved in delivery healthcare and support in relation to safeguarding. MSP focuses on the person not the process. In this case the practitioner did not look into the matter further for him to use the guidance’s under MSP to assist him in practice as well as provide the best possible outcome for the service user. The policies that are underpinned with MSP assists those working with adults on how to develop swift and personalized safeguarding responses it also includes how to involve the client in decision making. MSP is great to use it has many benefits for the client and for the practitioner the reasons for this is because as mentioned earlier it is person led and outcome focused, which empowers individuals and brings hope to a client when they are working through their care plans with the appropriate support around them. It also takes into consideration what the client’s wishes are. But it also has to consider the clients safety, as clients cannot have something that would put them in danger. For example in the case study the client who had autism and unbalanced personality disorder. He might request to socialize and go to the local pub weekly on his own. However due to his condition he may fail to recognize social cues such as being able to recognize who is safe to speak to and who is not. They could be easily be manipulated into drinking excessively or could be groomed by other individual’s. Hence why requests can be considered but whether or not they will be met by the healthcare professionals depends on the how safe it is. Safeguarding must be considered throughout all cases and referrals to protect the client from harm or risk. Research suggests when acting in someone’s best interests not to making assumptions about mental capacity of an individual based on their age, appearance or mental condition. To also consider the individuals past, present beliefs, values, wishes and feelings. The next point to be discussed is the strength based approach in relation to safeguarding an individual in accordance to the Care Act 2014.

The Care Act requires local authorities to have a strength-based approach throughout a service user’s journey and this needs to be implemented in all interventions and interactions with the service user. Strength based approach is a process between a service user, different services and healthcare professionals that are supporting them. This approach allows them to work collaboratively to decide on an outcome that focuses on the service user’s strengths and assets. The terms strengths and assets refer to the different skills and qualities that help the service user to manage things in everyday life, and that would consequently help them to meet their needs and achieve their goals. For example it could be the individual’s abilities, skills, knowledge. Also the social aspect of the individual such as the resources they have around them such as community centers, college, social programs. This also links in with the community resources that are available to the individual. Referring back to the case study it states that the practitioner failed to assess the service user, prepare the care plans and review the risks involved. However based on the strength based practice, social work practitioners are expected to conduct care plans and risk assessments to enable them to identify the strengths and areas of developments of the individual. Yet in this case this was not followed, this is not to say that the strength based practice is not effective, rather than the practitioner was not competent enough to carry out his role. Social workers have a lot of responsibilities and commitments to their service users, but the case article stated that the department he was working with was badly organized. This results to the team failing as a whole not just the practitioner.

According to research when implementing the strength based approach within social work, practitioners need to commit time to research and familiarize themselves with the community resources. The person who would be held for accountability would be the practitioner and appropriate time needs to be allocated for the assessment so nothing is missed out. The social work practitioner did not assess the client who had been discharged from hospital or the other client he was assigned to, to investigate the risks that she was at. Nor did he prepare a care plan that he was meant to do. Therefore he failed himself as a professional, the clients who were vulnerable and at risk, he had also failed the team he was working with. The practitioner did not allocate time for his duties towards the service users therefore was not successful in his role.

Regardless of the strength based approach being effective in practice with clients and practitioners, there are many implications in practice that social workers face. The senior and middle management as well as practitioners could be affected because they will need to make adjustments and allowances to accommodate the strength based approach (SCIE). Referring back to the case study it stated that the practitioner was working under pressure and was struggling to cope with the cases. However he did not ask for help or raise this with the professionals senior to him. If he did speak to someone he would have gained some sort of support that would have helped him in practice. The practitioner had let himself down in this area, as practitioners are aware prior to their qualification that it is a role that has a lot of pressure and responsibilities. As an individual you need to be able to ask for help when required, this also has an impact on the competency of your role. As the assessments could take longer than usual, this includes the preparation of the assessment and the closure too as each case is different and unique in its own way. Also because the practitioners need to have greater knowledge and awareness of the community resources particularly within the area of their work.

Research suggests that the person who raises a safeguarding concern within their own agency should follow the policies and procedures provided. This concern is usually resulted from something that the practitioner has seen, been told or heard. Social workers would carry out an assessment to clarify the safeguarding concerns. If there are safeguarding concerns such as being financially abused, emotional abuse, physical abuse or other factors then the appropriate steps will be taken in order to protect the adult from danger and provide them with a safe environment to live in. They might get an emergency referral into supported accommodation if the abuse is taking place at home, and they may raise this with the police and other professional agencies where relevant. On the initial contact it should be clarified if the adults safeguarding concerns fall under the safeguarding adult duties defined by the Care Act 2014. According to research local authorities have new safeguarding duties; they must have a multi-agency local adult safeguarding system in place. The aim of this system would be to prevent abuse and neglect and stop it quickly when it happens. They would need to make enquiries in regards to the risk of abuse, neglect and find out what action they will need to take. The local authority would also need to establish safeguarding boards which means to have the NHS and police involved where relevant to share and implement a strategy.

If the service user passes away as a result of neglect or abuse then enquiries will be made to the local authority or its partners to find out what they could have done to protect the individual. In the case article it stated that the senior management team had been alerted about the practitioner, when a client had passed away two months after being referred to the local authority. Furthermore there had been two more cases which have been discussed in this essay which resulted in a tribunal taking place and the practitioner being suspended from his role. When making a safeguarding enquiry or review the service user might need an advocate to represent and support the individual. The practitioner would also look into this. Prior to the Care Act 2014 there were no set assessments for local authorities to follow for safeguarding. But since the Care Act 2014 came into place it provides them with a strategic plan to assess the individuals safeguarding concerns. Adequate training is also provided to help them to implement this into practice. However with this case even though the Care Act 2014 was put into place they did not follow protocol. But this is not failing of the Care Act 2014 because the changes were made for practitioners to safeguard correctly, and to have a greater impact on the service users. If the practitioners do not follow this it may be down to their own ability and weaknesses, which shows clearly in the case study that has been shown in this text.

Overall this essay has demonstrated some of changes that have been made in terms of safeguarding such as making safeguarding personal, the strength based approach and the way in which service users are assessed. These changes that have been taken place have been positive for competent social work practitioners and clients who are at risk. The case study that was discussed throughout showed how incompetent the practitioner was to safeguard the clients that were assigned to him. MSP is person-led and outcome focused, this approach has a lot of client involvement, choice and control, which is based around the risks that the client is in, in order to safeguard them from this. However the social worker failed to communicate effectively with the service user, which resulted in the client being at risk with no care plan after she had been discharged from the hospital. Due to this there was no client involvement and the client did not feel safe. The second point that was mentioned was the strength based approach this focuses on the service user’s personal strengths such as abilities skills and knowledge, and other areas too such as social abilities and community resources. When using this approach in practice practitioner’s need to carry out a risk assessment and care plans to identity the strengths of the individual. However the practitioner failed to arrange a meeting with the second client who had autism and did not have a reason for why he did not carry out his investigation. However this is not the norm of good social work practice as well as good social work management. As there are many successful safeguarding cases throughout every local authority and they all have their own strengths and weaknesses. The Care Act 2014 was put into place to provide a national eligibility threshold for access to care as well as to replace the pre-existing laws around adult social care in order to focus on personalization, prevention and integration.