Neglect and serious case reviews (PDF, 735KB) - nspcc

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Neglect and Serious Case Reviews whether the Scr coNcerNed a fatality or a SeriouS iNjury The 645 serious case reviews from 2005–2011 were categorised as to whether the child died or was seriously injured or harmed. In total there were serious case reviews relating to 399 deaths, and 246 concerning serious injury. This was explored in relation to neglect, and results are displayed in Table 2.3. table 2.3: death or serious injury by (past or current) cp plan for neglect fatal Serious injury cp plan – neglect (n=101) 57 (56%)* 44 (45%) cp plan – not neglect (n=74) 27 (37%) 47 (63%) whole sample excluding cp plan – neglect (n=544) 342 (63%) 202 (37%) * Of which 38 children had a current plan for neglect at the time of their death, and 18 had a discontinued plan for neglect Between 2005–11 there were serious case reviews relating to 57 deaths of children who had a CP plan in the category of neglect at some point in their lives. Thirty-eight children (two thirds) had a plan for neglect in place at the time they died, and nineteen (a third) had had a CP plan for neglect at some point in their life but it had been discontinued at the time of their death. This shows that children living with neglect may be at risk of death, and not just long-term developmental damage. However, having a CP plan for neglect is NOT a predictor of likely death or serious harm and should not be interpreted in this way. Of the 44 children who suffered a serious injury, but survived, 21 had a neglect CP plan in place when the incident occurred, while the CP plans for neglect for the remaining 23 children had been discontinued. child protectioN plaNS – NatioNal coNtext 26 The detailed breakdown of category of plan for all children who had a current or past CP plan is presented in Table 2.4. To set the results in context, national comparative figures for all children with a CP plan are given. The percentage of children with a child protection plan for neglect broadly reflects the figure for England (DfE 2011, for more detail see also Appendix A). Note that, as in the national data, some of the children categorised under neglect will be subsumed under the ‘multiple’ category where there was more than one category of concern.
2. Neglect in the lives of children who become the subject of a serious case review – a statistical overview table 2.4: category of plan; serious case review sample and national statistics category of abuse Scr cp plan data 2005–11 (n=175) **Neglect only 73 (42%) 45% physical abuse only 32 (18%) 13% Sexual abuse only 12 (7%) 7% emotional abuse only 19 (11%) 26% **multiple (including neglect) multiple (excluding neglect) 28 (16%) 11 (6%) *See Appendix A for yearly breakdown. ** 73 + 28 make up the 101 neglect cases. National data (england) 2005–11* mean yearly % 10% Any categories A serious case review must be held in all cases where a child dies and abuse or neglect is known or suspected. Where a child is seriously injured or harmed there is more discretion about holding a review. However, if the child is (or has ever been) the subject of child protection plan this is one of the issues that Working Together lists as needing to prompt a LSCB to consider holding a review (HM Government 2010:236). The categories of plan shown in Table 2.4 include cases of review held for both death and serious injury. The children at the centre of a review less often had a plan for emotional abuse, and were more often listed under multiple categories of concern than all children nationally with a plan (22 rather than 10 per cent). The multiple category cases may represent the most complex cases which we might expect to feature in serious case reviews. An alternative explanation may be that when a serious injury occurs to a child who has a plan under multiple categories, the LSCB is more likely to undertake a serious case review. Where children had combined categories of CP plan (there were 39 SCRs where this occurred) almost three quarters included neglect. The combined plans were as follows: Neglect and physical abuse 9 instances Neglect and emotional abuse 8 instances Neglect and sexual abuse 7 instances Neglect, physical abuse and emotional abuse 2 instances Neglect, physical abuse and sexual abuse 2 instances Combinations of categories (but not including neglect) 11 instances 27
Page 1 and 2: Neglect aNd SeriouS caSe reviewS A
Page 3 and 4: Contents Executive Summary 7 1. The
Page 5 and 6: tableS Tables and Figures appeNdix
Page 7 and 8: iNtroductioN Key fiNdiNgS Executive
Page 9 and 10: fiNdiNgS how ofteN iS Neglect evide
Page 11 and 12: Neglect iN all ScrS from 2009-11 To
Page 13 and 14: Sudden unexpected deaths in infancy
Page 15 and 16: maintaining a healthy, safe relatio
Page 17 and 18: 1. The context of neglect and serio
Page 19 and 20: Summary 1. The context of neglect a
Page 21 and 22: 2.2 reSultS 2. Neglect in the lives
Page 23 and 24: There are encouraging signs of a dr
Page 25: figure 2.1: age distribution of chi
Page 29 and 30: 2. Neglect in the lives of children
Page 31 and 32: what did Neglect co-exiSt with? 2.
Page 33 and 34: 2. Neglect in the lives of children
Page 35 and 36: figure 2.2: incidence of cp plan fo
Page 37 and 38: Summary 2. Neglect in the lives of
Page 39 and 40: what did Neglect coexiSt with? 2. N
Page 41 and 42: 3. A thematic analysis of neglect h
Page 43 and 44: As discussed in Chapter 2, it was n
Page 45 and 46: • There had been a lack of proper
Page 47 and 48: In reading the set of serious case
Page 49 and 50: The SCRs drew our attention to undu
Page 51 and 52: or more of a burden to his mother,
Page 53 and 54: parental learning disability Parent
Page 55 and 56: event prompting the serious case re
Page 57 and 58: themeS aNd learNiNg poiNtS ‘an ac
Page 59 and 60: 3.5 SuddeN uNexpected death iN iNfa
Page 61 and 62: agency involvement: learning: There
Page 63 and 64: Sudi riSKS aNd targeted iNterveNtio
Page 65 and 66: event prompting the Serious case re
Page 67 and 68: learning: themeS aNd learNiNg poiNt
Page 69 and 70: uising and rough handling An unders
Page 71 and 72: event prompting the Serious case re
Page 73 and 74: themeS aNd learNiNg poiNtS the long
Page 75 and 76: situation or dangers posed by, for
Page 77 and 78:
Sudden unexpected deaths in infancy
Page 79 and 80:
4 Implications for policy and pract
Page 81 and 82:
maiNtaiNiNg a healthy, Safe relatio
Page 83 and 84:
Bibliography Blair, P., Sidebotham,
Page 85 and 86:
Bibliography Ofsted (2008) Learning
Page 87 and 88:
Appendix Table A.2 Category of abus
Page 89 and 90:
3. extreme Neglect / deprivatioNal
Page 92:
Photography by Jon Challicom, posed
show all

Neglect and serious case reviews (PDF, 735KB) - nspcc

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?