APPENDIX 14
Memorandum by Adult Protection Committee
(Hull and East Riding of Yorkshire) (EA19)
1. This submission is provided on behalf
of the multi-agency steering group for adult protection in the
above locality and by the author who since June 2001 has had the
strategic responsibility for implementing new adult protection
measures across the area following new government guidance. The
author is also chair of the Northern Regional Network Group for
Adult Protection.
2. The DoH/Home Office guidance document
"No Secrets" issued to local authorities in March
2000 recognised concerns about abuse being perpetrated on vulnerable
adults in care settings and required that local multi-agency guidelines
for the protection of vulnerable adults be in place by October
2001. That was achieved.
3. Since there has been little or no governmental
follow up in order to establish a picture of the extent of abuse.
Performance indicators have not been put in place, so that national
comparisons cannot be made or what effects "No Secrets"
has made are unclear. The lack of published data allows the media
to highlight individual cases which the public then see as the
norm.
4. RECOMMENDATION
A national review should be instigated to ascertain
the impact of "No Secrets" and to establish whether
further guidance is required.
5. Adult Protection Committees were formed
in response to the guidance with a strategic intention but there
is no governance or legislation to underpin their role. Protection
of vulnerable adults is a multi-agency responsibility, but at
present achieving that strategic participation is too voluntary.
Terms of reference have been agreed but commitment is required
in all areas to achieve.
6. RECOMMENDATION
Adult Protection Committees should be placed
on a statutory footing.
7. Locally a case review protocol is in
place with laid down criteria as to when a review should be held.
Briefly that is where there has been a death of a vulnerable adult
and abuse is, or suspected to be the cause or cases of abuse where
there is a public interest issue. At present any action(s) emanating
from that review are not regulated formally except perhaps within
the role undertaken by NCSC. At present there is no requirement
for any other regulator/inspection body to audit any review, so
that any appropriate action can be taken. In this aspect there
needs to be some comparison with that currently in place in respect
of the protection of children.
8. RECOMMENDATION
Outcomes of reviews should be subject to audit
by regulators / inspection bodies.
9. Protection of vulnerable adults can only
be wholly achieved with a professional body of practitioners and
carers. That requires staff training. Largely that training is
not seen as mandatory, recently highlighted in the Community and
District Nurses Association research report on abuse of the elderly.
Lack of training enhances the scope for abuse.
10. RECOMMENDATION
Mandatory training should be instigated for
all staff involved with the health and social care of the elderly.
11. The POVA register as part of the function
of the NCSC was to provide a mechanism to ensure that those persons
who were not suitable to work in the care sector were prevented
from doing so. That is not yet in place. Locally a nurse who was
recently sentenced to three years imprisonment for financially
abusing an elderly resident in a care home would not have been
able to practice if the register had been in place.
12. RECOMMENDATION
The POVA register should be introduced as a
matter of urgency.
| 
