Norrie, Caroline, Stevens, Martin, Graham, Katherine Elizabeth orcid.org/0000-0002-0948-8538 et al. (2 more authors) (2017) The Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Models of Organising Adult Safeguarding. British Journal of Social Work. pp. 1205-1223. ISSN 1468-263X
Abstract
Professionals express divergent views about whether adults at risk are best served by safeguarding work being incorporated into social workers’ casework or being undertaken by specialist workers within local area or centralised teams. This paper draws on findings from the final two phases of a three-phase study which aimed to identify a typology of different models of organising adult safeguarding and compare the advantages and disadvantages of these. We used mixed-methods to investigate four different models of organising adult safeguarding which we termed: A) Dispersed-Generic, B) Dispersed-Specialist, C) Partly-Centralised-Specialist and D) Fully-Centralised-Specialist. In each model, we analysed staff interviews (n = 38), staff survey responses (n = 206), feedback interviews (with care home managers, solicitors and Independent Mental Capacity Advocates) (n = 28), Abuse of Vulnerable Adults (AVA) Returns, Adult Social Care User Survey Returns (ASCS) and service costs. This paper focuses on qualitative data from staff and feedback interviews and the staff survey. Our findings focus on safeguarding as a specialism, safeguarding practice (including multi-agency working, prioritisation, tensions, handover, staff confidence and deskilling) and managing safeguarding. Local authority (LA) participants described and commented on the advantages and disadvantages of their organisational model. Feedback interviews offered different perspectives on safeguarding services and implications of different models.
Metadata
Item Type: | Article |
---|---|
Authors/Creators: |
|
Copyright, Publisher and Additional Information: | © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The British Association of Social Workers. All rights reserved. This is an author-produced version of the published paper. Uploaded in accordance with the publisher’s self-archiving policy. Further copying may not be permitted; contact the publisher for details |
Dates: |
|
Institution: | The University of York |
Academic Units: | The University of York > Faculty of Social Sciences (York) > Social Policy and Social Work (York) |
Depositing User: | Pure (York) |
Date Deposited: | 04 Jul 2016 12:04 |
Last Modified: | 24 Oct 2024 23:54 |
Published Version: | https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcw032 |
Status: | Published |
Refereed: | Yes |
Identification Number: | 10.1093/bjsw/bcw032 |
Open Archives Initiative ID (OAI ID): | oai:eprints.whiterose.ac.uk:101630 |
Download
Filename: MOS_phase_2_and_3_findings_PURE.pdf
Description: MOS phase 2 and 3 findings PURE