Rank: Super forum user 
|
Safeguarding means 'protecting people's health, wellbeing and human rights, and enabling them to live free from harm, abuse and neglect'.
Protecting their rights to live in safety, free from abuse and neglect.
People and organisations working together to prevent the risk of abuse or neglect, and to stop them from happening.
Making sure people's wellbeing is promoted, taking their views, wishes, feelings and beliefs into account.
The above is taken from the CQC definition but I think this is what is meant by safeguarding, where do people feel that H&S fits. This may only apply to H&S practitioners in the field.
My own feelings are that because it has 'safe' in the title then managers and carers believe it sits with H&S, but is this true? isn't it that H&S might be part of it but a bigger emphasis should be given to the care planning, as the feelings of the people concerned needs to be taken into account.
The reason I am asking is that increasingly I am finding that once we are told of an issue everyone else leaves it alone, and when I ask what other measures are in place they tell me well we passed it over to you!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi Invictus,
I believe this function should sit with the registered manager of the service(s) and that the H&S input into this should be of a support nature.
Pete,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Morning,
Safeguarding sits with H&S in the same way HR and Quality do. i.e. they don't. They are different, but with crossover. They are largely personal issues, not necessarily affected by work.
A care setting, is where the lines are most blurred, but to simply pass on safeguarding issues to H&S or HR are not adequately dealing with them.
All staff dealing with children or vulnerable adults should be aware of safeguarding and have undergone at least some rudimentary training.
However, a designated safeguarding team needs to be established, this is an addition to job roles in the same vein as say, a first aider. This would have a designated lead with a number of designated officers depending on the spread and size of the workforce and number of vulnerable people. They would undergo more specialist training and meet regularly as a team to support one another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I agree with the above posts, Safeguarding is a specialist subject and should not be part of the H&S domain. That said, there may be some support H&S practitioners can give but it will be very limited in my opinion. It is in fact not dissimilar to Care, another specialist subject where there may be some overlap with H&S activities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If the organisation needs PVG clearance for most or all its staff, then someone will already be named responsible for obtaining and acting on the reports received.... That someone might be the h&s person, or it may be the hr manager, or it may be the home manager or.... I believe that safeguarding sits wherever it is put, which should be with whoever is best placed to understand, organise, plan, monitor and review the necessary measures. See what I did there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I agree with all the above points. Just to add, IMHO where employers are responsible for vulnerable groups safeguarding requires being managed by all departments. For example, HR in recruiting suitable staff, organising the PVG checks and checking employment agencies, learning departments responsible for devising and developing the training, front line Management to ensure that staff are acting appropriately and reporting where necessary, Senior Executives ensuring governance etc...
As the H&S bod for an organisation who deals with this stuff, I do get involved with ASP and RTF (Scottish equivalent) in some depth. The reason being is that (most) H&S people know how to interoperate and implement legislation requirements. This trait allows me to ensure compliance and ASP is part of my H&S remit. Note: When I audit H&S, ASP and RTF is part of the safety audit standards.
The CQC definition of 'taking peoples feelings into account' may well be admirable, but ultimately the law has to be complied with and care providers owe a duty to their staff and to ensure the safety of the people they are commissioned to support.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
But if you want to prevent them being able to move around freely 'service users' that is you have to apply for a DOL first (Deprivation of Liberty). So up until that point you have to take their views into account.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
This function is statutory and as such most councils do employ a safeguarding officer, or safeguarding is given to a designated officer depending on the set up, this to enable the Council to to comply with the act. As suggested earlier H&S do play a supporting role in this function. The "PREVENT" initiative is also linked to Safeguarding, PREVENT is being used to identify radicalisation and reduce it's uptake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Invictus - You cannot deprive a persons liberty (or restrict their freedom) if they have capacity, unless they are committing a crime.
It a person does not have capacity you would not take their views into account. That is why the courts will decide if a DoLs order will be issued or not and not the person. For example, when a person is being restrained to keep them and others safe, it is often against their wishes.
Point's to note: There are different rules for adults and children. DoLs does not apply in Scotland.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
toe wrote:Invictus - You cannot deprive a persons liberty (or restrict their freedom) if they have capacity, unless they are committing a crime.
It a person does not have capacity you would not take their views into account. That is why the courts will decide if a DoLs order will be issued or not and not the person. For example, when a person is being restrained to keep them and others safe, it is often against their wishes.
Point's to note: There are different rules for adults and children. DoLs does not apply in Scotland.
That's what I said!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
In every care organisation I've been involved in or know about safeguarding is always managed and implemented by clinicians and or social workers. In our forthcoming incident reporting system I, as head of health and safety and the 'owner' of the system won't even see safeguarding incidents. And I'm very happy with that. On the rare occasions when there is a link with H&S I will be informed, but usually there isn't and I won't be.
Tigers; don't talk to me about PREVENT. I think INCENSE or INFLAME might be a better term for this misguided and misinformed initiative. My partner has had to endure it, and sat through a whole day of a highly paid and gravely misinformed 'expert' waffling on about things she knew not wot of. And when I was in Northern Ireland discussing this I was told that 'every teenager in NI is at risk of radicalisation'. Though perhaps not in the limited sense the term is used by the Sun and the Home Office,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The government report on the Winterbourn view scandal has dramatically changes the health and care sector when caring for people with autism and learning disabilities. The report identified and sets stronger accountability and corporate responsibility for owners and directors of private hospitals and care homes.
For this reason, organisation governance is key. This is why we log every ASP (safeguarding) issue onto our incident reporting system in which we report to our Executive Directors on a 3-month basis. Within our organisation, this is an H&S function.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Starting at the beginning the definition I use is
A vulnerable adult is defined as: ‘any person 18 years or over, who is, or may be in need of community care services by reason of mental, physical or learning disability, age or illness and is, or may be, unable to take care of him or herself or unable to protect him or herself against significant harm or exploitation (Dept. of Health “No Secrets (2000)”.
Looking at this one can see an H&S crossover into systems run by others. Bear in mind we are probably more experienced in RA than many other professions
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Just to add to Bob's post regarding Risk assessment. I think that we (H&S People) are also more experienced in understanding and complying with legislation, and are able to implement sufficient control measures including policy making and training. Something, HR and operational managers often struggle with.
Also adding to Bob's definition;
A person that is engaging (or is likely to engage) in conduct which causes (or is likely to cause) self-harm, is included as a person that is 'at risk'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.