Making safeguarding personal: hearing the voice of the service user

In April 2021, the Redbridge Safeguarding Adults Board (RSAB) published its priorities for 2021/22. It identified a specific action to ensure the voice of service users is heard and to seek assurances that Making Safeguarding Person (MSP) is embedded within the London Borough of Redbridge across the wider safeguarding partnership. Healthwatch Redbridge was commissioned as an independent organisation to conduct the interviews and make recommendations to the board.

The aim of the project is:

• To get a snapshot of adults (and their families) experiences of safeguarding systems in Redbridge.
• To understand what is working/what is not working in terms of current safeguarding practice, from the perspective of the ‘service user’ (which we suggest could and should include carers and family members).
• To understand how advocacy services are used in relation to safeguarding.
• To identify gaps, strengths, and deficiencies in current safeguarding practice.
• To shape and improve professional practice (where necessary), and to ensure that  safeguarding is (wherever possible) truly ‘personal’.
• To inform future resource allocation, as appropriate.
• To identify and recommend how participants could be further involved in the ongoing audit of safeguarding to improve the service.

The research consisted of five service user interviews and three interviews with safeguarding leads of large community and voluntary organisations. From this the report draws recommendations in two areas.

Timing of communication:

• All safeguarding reviews must receive a clear and timely acknowledgement;
• Referrals are triaged by an accountable person who makes provision for their absence on leave;
• At initial referral, safeguarding is clearly explained to the person at the centre;
• The person at the centre of the review is told what to expect, a timescale, and what to do if they don’t hear within that timescale;
• At the closure of a safeguarding review, the outcome is explained to the person at the centre of the review, with tier advocate present if needed;
• Communication with third=party referrers about the closure of the review and outcome, possibly via a template letter.

Nature of communication

• Clear, non-technical explanations;
• Service user perspective should be sought and recorded;
• Compassionate, respectful engagement, addressing individual circumstances and vulnerabilities;
• Regular updates throughout the review in person-centred language
• Timescales given and contact details for tone person who can remain in contact throughout the review.