HSE Child Protection and Welfare Service in Carlow/Kilkenny - hiqa.ie

Inspection of the HSE Child Protection and Welfare Service in Carlow/Kilkenny Local Health Area in theHSE South RegionHealth Information and Quality Authoritychildren’s files on the electronic system and in hard copy and found that socialworkers had carried out the assessment and completed the required documents.Where a student had undertaken direct work as part of the assessment process,inspectors saw that the supervising social worker had reviewed and co-signed thedocumentation. There was a tool in place to support the social workers’ assessment,and identified risks were recorded on it as well as the actions to be taken.The initial assessment process identified children’s and families’ needs and strengths,as well as associated risks, but it was not robust. Within this process, social workersdetermined positive elements within the family structure to mitigate areas ofconcern. This process was central to the duty assessment function of the social workdepartment, but inspectors found it had shortcomings. No formal risk assessmenttool was used by social workers although the results of each assessment wererecorded on a standard form. There was a danger that social workers would notdetermine thresholds of harm consistently and this could then affect the prioritisationof referrals. The way in which the duty system was operated did not lend itself as anefficient assessment process.The assessment system was fragmented. In one social work office, social workerscompleted initial assessments of some cases assigned to them by the social workduty team leader when working their three-day duty roster. However, if theassessment had not been completed at the end of this time, work on it ceased untilthe individual social worker returned to do a further duty assignment. In the othersocial work office, social workers were not assigned cases for assessment. Inspectorswere told that the focus of this system was for social workers to work the casesprioritised by the social work team leader on a day-by-day basis. This meant thateither several social workers could be involved in the same assessment or thatassessments could take a considerable period of time.As previously stated, initial assessments were not carried out in the requiredtimeframes. Data provided to the Authority by the LHA showed in the 12 monthsprior to the inspection 1,156 referrals were received. Of these referrals the LHAdetermined that 644 initial assessments were recommended. Arising from thesereferrals, 266 were completed and a further 78 were ongoing. Fifty-six werecompleted within the timeframe recommended in Children First (2011).There was evidence that An Garda Síochána were involved when there wereconcerns about a child, but not always at the appropriate stage as outlined inChildren First (2011) and the recording of communications needed improvement.From documentation reviewed by inspectors, there were 33 formal notifications tothe Gardaí from the LHA between January 2012 and April 2012 and these had beenmade once an allegation of abuse had been confirmed. The notifications were part ofthe interagency process outlined in Children First (2011). Inspectors were told thatthere was informal communication between the social worker and An Garda Síochánafollowing a report to the LHA when there were concerns about suspected physical orsexual abuse, or wilful neglect of a child. Inspectors found evidence that sometimesthese contacts were recorded but were concerned that this was not always the case.23