‘Why involving social workers in case reviews improves outcomes’

By Donna Ohdedar

Social workers are often the focus for blame when a tragedy occurs. When practice falls short of what was expected, leaders are under pressure to show accountability.

But where this leads to more compliance measures and defensiveness, we’re not creating the conditions for workers to do what they do best.

With high caseloads and overwhelm, a more supportive approach would encourage openness, ownership and, inevitably, a better outcome that doesn’t result in more time-consuming procedures.

Why we involve practitioners for better review outcomes

It is in all of our best interests to give practitioners a voice in reviews – and it is their right to have a voice.

Social workers hold the key information to inform our learning.”

The overview report author and agency report authors, who are at one step removed from the case, can report facts inaccurately; so we must involve practitioners for an accurate narrative.

However, the need to involve the practitioner directly isn’t always explicitly expressed in the guidance that underpins reviews in England.

What statutory guidance says

It is only the guidance for child safeguarding practice reviews in Working Together to Safeguard Children that clearly states that practitioners should be “fully involved and invited to contribute their perspectives without fear of being blamed for actions taken in good faith”.

In relation to safeguarding adults reviews, the care and support statutory guidance only asks that there is “appropriate involvement of professionals/organisations”.  This is far too vague and may not mean the frontline practitioner is involved.

Meanwhile, there is no mention of involving frontline practitioners directly in Home Office guidance (2016) for domestic homicide reviews (soon to become domestic abuse related death reviews).

New guidance was consulted on last year and is now being considered by the Home Office. Updated guidance should clearly state the need for professional to be involved.

However, regardless of whether statutory guidance requires it, we must always involve practitioners in the review process. It is disrespectful to conduct a review without including those who were involved in the case. 

Traditional models v SILP

Traditionally, in my experience, the social worker involved in the case has not been part of the review. Whilst a report will have been written for their agency to submit, they may well have felt that they lost ownership.

As thinking has progressed and more local areas have experimented with direct practitioner involvement in reviews, this is slowly improving.

Under the Significant Incident Learning Process (SILP) model, reviewers speak directly with practitioners and families, learning from what went well as well as any shortcomings. There is an emphasis on talking about the case, not only looking at written material submitted.

The review chair directly consults with the social worker involved in the case during a learning event with other practitioners. This allows for a fuller understanding of what happened, what was going on in their day-to-day work life, what was happening on the ground.

How social workers can better prepare for a review

The SILP reviewer will hold a briefing to talk through how social workers need to prepare, and will allow space for asking questions as to what is expected and needed from them. This initial meeting is absolutely vital to ensure a thorough report with appropriate feedback, so it must be attended.

Donna Ohdedar of Review Consulting

My number one requirement in all reviews is that wraparound support is available for every participant. What this means is that a manager or safeguarding lead is on hand in the lead-up to any meetings or learning events the practitioner may be required to attend.

As a supporter, you may decide to ask the independent reviewer questions about what to expect or how you will deal with specific facts or issues you will be required to discuss. The sense of anticipation before these meetings can be unnecessarily stressful, so clarity about the purpose and requirements for the meeting or learning event will help enormously.

For any safeguarding system to be able to learn about how well it’s doing, it needs good feedback about the processes and the outcomes of the services provided.

As independent reviewers, it is our role to prompt good conversations and put practitioners, who are likely feeling high levels of anxiety, at ease.

The emphasis should be on learning rather than blame, which provides reassurance to the apprehensive.”

Positive practitioner feedback

Research commissioned by Review Consulting from the University of Nottingham about a SILP review carried out in 2014 found the process enabled the experiences and views of the practitioners nearest to events to be reflected accurately as part of the learning event experience.

We have also received feedback that involving the practitioner increases motivation and engagement in the review process, encourages greater performance and enables teams to be more effective in managing change.

Every practitioner is an inheritor of the system, with all of its defects. Taking part in a review not only helps to improve the system, but may also act as catharsis for practitioners involved in cases that had a poor outcome.

In every review I undertake, I am grateful for the courage, energy and hard work the practitioners put in to ensure that the review has an accurate narrative that generates vital learning.

Donna Ohdedar, chief executive officer of Review Consulting, is an independent reviewer and consultant in safeguarding and domestic abuse cases