Sefton Council: local authority assessment

The local authority had effective systems, processes and practices to protect people from abuse and neglect. Sefton had restructured their safeguarding arrangements in 2023/2024 to enhance their governance arrangements and risk assessment and risk monitoring were embedded within the system. All safeguarding concerns were screened by a safeguarding triage team which was staffed by qualified social workers. A lead practitioner had access to data and information to enable them to have oversight of safeguarding’s and prioritise urgent work. The safeguarding team were part of daily huddles with occupational therapists and social workers to enable a multi-disciplinary approach. Staff we spoke with were proud of the development of the safeguarding team and told us the system was clear with robust decision making. National data from the Adult Social Care Survey 2023/2024 showed 68.82% of people who used adult social care services felt safe which was similar to the England average of 71.06%.

There was senior level leadership and oversight of safeguarding work. A partner told us there was corporate ownership of safeguarding and a consistent approach, with stakeholders thinking widely about safety and safeguarding. The local authority had a robust internal system, and senior leaders met regularly and had good oversight of what was happening escalating any safety concerns to the Safeguarding Adults Board (SAB).

The local authority worked with the SAB and partners to deliver a co-ordinated approach to safeguarding adults. The SAB had 4 pillars (subgroups) which were; Communication and Inclusion for All, Early Intervention and Prevention, Learning Through Development and Quality Assurance Activity and Development and Governance. Sefton was also part of the Merseyside Safeguarding Adults Review Group. Partners told us at times the changes in workforce meant it was difficult to get consistent people attending the SAB pillars, which could impact on momentum. In response to this they moved away from having a continued chair of each pillar, and instead the person who had the expertise of the subject matter would chair. This had a positive impact on attendance.

The voluntary and community sector were part of the SAB and shared people’s experiences, for example a partner ran a listening and learning group which brought people’s voice into the SAB. The SAB also attended a co production group with people with lived experience, to ask for their views, talk about changes and raise awareness of safeguarding. The group had recently supported with the development of a poster and leaflets.

There was a strong multi-agency safeguarding partnership, and the roles and responsibilities for identifying and responding to concerns were clear. There was a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management Process (MARAM) to manage specific safeguarding risks alongside partners through risk assessments and multi-disciplinary meetings. Staff spoke positively about this process and found it helpful to resolve any complex issues people faced. For example, one team had used the MARAM process to work with a person who required specific support from health services but found it difficult to engage. MARAM had improved the opportunities to share information and enabled improved engagement with the person.

Staff involved in safeguarding work were skilled and had support to undertake their safeguarding duties effectively. Staff told us they had relevant training, support and supervision. A safeguarding enquiry training programme (Level 4) had been carried out with staff with further training for managers and lead practitioners (Level 5). The training was provided by a barrister and covered safeguarding adults’ legislation and effective risk assessments. Staff told us they were kept up to date with new safeguarding developments, for example new pressure ulcer guidance had been shared by health partners. The local authority offered safeguarding training to providers via an e learning programme they had developed. The training included relevant case studies and was offered free to all providers.

There was a clear understanding of the safeguarding risks and issues in the area. In the SAB’s Annual Report 23-24, adult social care’s key priorities for 2024-25 were in relation to self-neglect and transitional safeguarding, effective and timely mental capacity assessments and safeguarding concerns for people who were rough sleeping.

The SAB had refreshed the hoarding guidance for practitioners in 2024, staff told us about this guidance which they used to support their decision making. The local authority shared in the assessment evidence how they worked with partner agencies, for example, to support someone who was displaying hoarding behaviours and another example of supporting someone to move out of their environment for a short period of time. For self-neglect staff told us there was a process in place and they would ensure they visited the person to understand the situation further.

In their self-assessment the local authority identified a need to further develop the Transitional Safeguarding Approach within Sefton. Transitional Safeguarding focuses on safeguarding young people from adolescence into adulthood. Staff told us for safeguarding concerns in relation to a care experienced adult, there was an immediate strategy meeting to gather information from children’s services. They shared an example where they were working with multiple partners including the police, under the MARAM process to manage risks. However, staff in some teams who worked with younger people did not have knowledge or training on transitional safeguarding.

To support working with people who were rough sleeping, partners told us the local authority had agreed to recruit an adult social care thematic lead social worker. The post was developed due to the increasing number of people with more complex needs requiring support from the homeless service and they were to act in a joint role across housing and adult social care having access to both systems.

Lessons were learned when people had experienced serious abuse or neglect, and action was taken to reduce future risks and drive best practice. Sefton were part of the Merseyside Safeguarding Adults Review Group (MSARG) with 3 other local authorities which meant they benefited from increased understanding and shared learning. Sefton had not undertaken a Safeguarding Adult Review (SAR) in the past 2 years (although 1 SAR was underway). As such the local authority had identified and shared learning with staff from regional and national SARs. For example, staff attended advanced mental capacity training following learning from a SAR in a neighbouring local authority. Learning was also shared in practice forum meetings which was open for all staff to attend. Staff spoke positively about this forum and told us they were encouraged to attend.

The SAB had introduced a Safeguarding Adults Review Consideration Panel, where social work practitioners could submit cases which might meet the SAR criteria or where there was potential for enhanced joint working with partners. Partners told us this was working well, and training issues and learning could be picked up at this group. The SAB also produced 7- minute briefings on various safeguarding issues and learning from reviews.

In the Sefton Safeguarding Adults Partnership Board Three-Year Strategy (2023-2026), an action was to link in with all sources of datasets and intelligence to identify and address outcomes, themes, trends and challenges across Sefton. An example was shared of how the board used data and information across the multi-agency partnership to identify a risk to people who were experiencing a mental health crisis. Once this was identified changes were made to improve access to transport in a crisis and access to information for doctors.

The local authority had oversight arrangements in place for reviewing safeguarding concerns in a timely way. The local authority had a dedicated triage team who reviewed all safeguarding concerns and this team was being expanded at the time of the assessment. Concerns were received through a professional’s portal, by email or telephone calls. Residents could raise a concern using a ‘raise a concern’ form, or a telephone number published on the local authority’s website. The local authorities’ recently revised Adult Safeguarding Procedures 2024 stated the timescale for reviewing safeguarding concerns was by the end of the next working day. Data provided by the local authority in January 2025 showed the timescale was being met with 5 safeguarding concerns waiting review, with a median and maximum wait of 1 day.

Providers told us they had concerns about the safeguarding portal, as they were expected to determine at the referral stage, whether the concern was a quality or a safeguarding issue. If local authority staff disagreed with their decision, they were asked to complete the correct form and send it in again. They told us it was difficult to speak with anyone about a concern. This meant potential delays and additional pressure on providers. Some providers had attended workshops with the local authority to give feedback about the safeguarding portal, however at the time of our assessment these concerns with the system were still present.

The local authority told us staff were clear on what constituted a section 42 safeguarding enquiry, and this was applied consistently. To support decision making, where possible the social worker would speak with the person, review historic information and assess the information against the criteria for section 42 of the Care Act. Manager’s screened safeguarding concerns to decide whether a section 42 enquiry was required, once screened action would commence within hours of an enquiry with a target to begin initial enquiries within 5 days. The work of the screening team supported safeguarding workloads to be more manageable. Data provided by the local authority in January 2025 showed there were 7 section 42 enquiries waiting allocation with a median wait of 1 day and a maximum wait of 15 days. The timescale was to allocate within 48 hours of receipt wherever possible.

Partners gave us mixed feedback about communication between themselves and the local authority in relation to safeguarding. Staff told us they sent a copy of section 42 enquiry reports to providers and referrers to ensure learning. However, a partner told us they were not always informed of the outcomes of safeguarding concerns and enquiries.

However, providers told us they struggled to find out the outcome of safeguarding concerns and enquiries and experienced inconsistency in relation to section 42 enquiries. We heard from providers who felt there was good involvement and other who reported a lack of involvement and updates.

The local authority had systems in place to respond to people who were experiencing domestic abuse. They used a risk assessment tool to identify risk levels, what support services a person could be referred to and whether the person should be referred to the Multi Agency Risk Assesment Conference (MARAC). MARAC is a multi-agency meeting where information is shared where people are at high risk. Staff gave an example of working with someone where they used the risk assessment to ensure the person’s safety. A partner told us they had worked with the local authority when supporting victims of domestic abuse and found they had robust systems and were thorough in their approach.

The safeguarding team worked closely with the quality assurance team to respond to safeguarding concerns. There were regular meetings to share information, and joint visits were also completed to services where safeguarding concerns were raised. Partner organisations such as health, were also invited to meetings where they needed to be involved to ensure a multi-agency response.

The local authority had a Quality Practice and Safeguarding Assurance group which met monthly. This group reviewed quality assurance issues raised through different methods, for example through audits, practice forums or complaints. Learning and action was agreed at the forum for sharing with staff.

In their self-assessment the local authority identified an area of improvement as more timely completion of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) assessments. Data provided by the local authority in January 2025 showed there were 832 DoLS requests waiting to be allocated, with a median wait of 274 days, and maximum wait of 1099 days. DoLS referrals were triaged and screened using the Adult Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS) priority tool to give a RAG rating. Higher priority cases were allocated on the same day and there was also a duty system in place. The local authority had a Best Interest Assessor development programme in place and had procured additional capacity to reduce waiting times. A Best Interest Assessor is a professional who assesses and determines the best interests of individuals who lack the mental capacity to make specific decisions for themselves.

Safeguarding enquiries were carried out sensitively, keeping the wishes and best interests of the person concerned at the centre. In line with making safeguarding personal principles, staff asked the person or their identified representative, at the end of each enquiry if their outcomes had been met. Data about making safeguarding personal provided to the SAB in June 2024 showed 96% of people had their outcomes fully or partially achieved (data covered the previous 12 months). Staff shared an example of how they had embedded making safeguarding personal when working with a person who was experiencing abuse within a close relationship. The social worker listened to what the person wanted and supported the person to maintain their relationship, assessing the risk and securing support from another agency. Another example was ensuring staff spoke with people as soon as possible about the safeguarding referral so they know there had been concerns raised and could gain their views.

People had access to advocates to support the person to participate and understand their rights, and ensure they were supported to make choices which balanced risks with positive choice and control in their lives. Staff shared an example of ensuring a person had advocacy support to make their views clear about their finances and package of care.

A provider told us there had been an increase in referrals for advocacy linked to safeguarding which were not always appropriate for the service, however after they had provided guidance and information to local authority staff they had seen improvements in the quality of referrals. National data for Sefton showed 100% of individuals lacking capacity were supported by an advocate, family or friend (Safeguarding Adult Collection) This was better than the England average which was 83.38%.