Resolution of professional concerns and disputes


INTRODUCTION



Professional concerns and disputes can arise at any stage of the child protection process and can lead to ineffective interagency working or in rare cases dangerous practice. The purpose of this procedure is to ensure that a robust mechanism exists to resolve professional concerns and disputes before they have a significant impact on the delivery of child protection services.

PRINCIPLES



The welfare of children must always be the paramount consideration

Good child protection practice depends on effective inter-agency working

  • All concerns and disagreements should be resolved
  • Underpinning this procedure is the need to promote learning and continued improvement in the interests of safeguarding children
  • Diversity of professional opinion should be respected
  • Concerns and disagreements should in the first instant be addressed with the agency concerned at the level at which they occur
  • Where concerns and disagreements cannot be resolved the matter will be dealt with by an CYSCB Review Panel

DISSENT AT ENQUIRY STAGE



Disagreements and concerns over the handling of child protection concerns typically occur when:

  • A referral is not considered to meet eligibility criteria by Children and Family Services
  • Informal advice is sought and a social worker has concluded that a referral is required
  • Children's Social Care concludes that further information should be sought by the referrer before and referral is progressed
  • Children's Social Care believes that an initial assessment can be started without invoking child protection procedures
  • Children's Social Care considers that child protection procedures must be invoked
  • Children's Social Care and the Family Protection Unit place different interpretations on the need for a s47 enquiry / criminal investigation
  • Disagreement regarding the justification for convening / not convening an initial conference
  • Information is withheld from Children's Social Care and / or the police
  • Good practice or procedures are not being followed or are the subject of differing interpretation

Good practice dictates that disputes should be resolved at the level at which they occur. Consequently, where a dispute arises between practitioners, they should be facilitated to resolve the issues in dispute without the intervention of more senior personnel.

Creative approaches to dispute resolution should be encouraged. Such approaches could for example utilise the services of a facilitator (e.g. the CYSCB Manger) to arbitrate between the protagonists.

If the professionals are unable to resolve differences through discussion and / or meeting within a timescale, which is acceptable to both of them, more senior personnel within the respective agencies must address their disagreement.

If agreement cannot be reached following discussions between first line managers (who should normally seek advice from the designated/named/lead officer child protection advisor) the issue must be referred without delay through the line management to the equivalent of Head of Service / Detective Inspector / Head Teacher or other designated professional. In the case of health personnel input may be sought directly from the Named Doctor or Nurse in preference to the use of line management.

A record of discussions must be maintained by all agencies involved.

DISSENT AT CHILD PROTECTION CONFERENCES



If the Chair of a conference is unable to achieve a consensus as to registration or de-registration, s/he will make a decision and note any dissenting views.

The agency or individual who dissents from the chair’s decision must determine whether s/he wishes to challenge the result.

If the dissenting professional believes that the decision reached by the chair places a child at (further) risk of significant harm, it is expected that s/he will formally raise the matter with the Service Manager (Quality Assurance) within two working days.

The Service Manager (Quality Assurance) will liaise with the conference

chair and either:

  • Uphold the decision reached by the conference chair or
  • Require that the conference be re-convened to be chaired by the original chair or where necessary a different chair

Where a conference chair is concerned about the conduct (including the quality of information presented or information being withheld) of a participating agency or individual the matter should be referred to the person’s line manager for resolution.

DISSENT REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHILD PROTECTION PLAN



Concern or disagreement may arise over another professional’s decisions, action or lack of actions in the implementation of the child protection plan, including core group meetings.

The line managers of the professionals involved should first attempt to address any concerns.

If agreement cannot be reached following discussions between first line managers (who should normally seek advice from the designated/named/lead officer child protection adviser) the issue must be referred without delay through the line management to the equivalent of Head of Service / Detective Inspector / Head Teacher or other designated professional. In the case of health personnel input may be sought directly from the Designated Doctor or Nurse in preference to the use of line management.

WHERE PROFESSIONAL DIFFERENCE REMAINS



If professional disagreements remain unresolved, the matter must be referred to the head of service for each agency involved.

All such disagreements and concerns must also be notified to the CYSCB Manager who will monitor progress and outcomes.

In the unlikely event that the steps outlined above do not resolve the issue, and / or the discussions raise significant policy issues and / or a number of similar concerns or disagreements have been recorded, the matter should be referred to the chair of the CYSCB.

The CYSCB chair may decide to convene a Review Panel.

Where a matter is referred to a Review Panel, the panel will be constituted within 28 working days, comprising at least two CYSCB representatives in addition to the agency or agencies to which the concerns relate.

Report/s will be submitted by the agency or agencies to the Case Review Panel a least a day in advance of the initial meeting. The reports should be produced either by a senior officer with relevant experience from within the agency and who does not have line management responsibility for the case or an independent person commissioned by the agency, and contain,

  • A chronology of relevant agency involvement
  • A summary and analysis of agency involvement
  • Recommendations for future action

In the event that the Case Review Panel considers the report of any individual agency contains insufficient information to reach a conclusion the chair may request further information.

The Review Panel may recommend:

  •  A Serious Case Review, where it is felt that the concerns are sufficiently serious and meet the criteria contained in Section 8 (Workinmg Together 2010).
  • Accept the recommendations made by the individual agencies

Where the agency reports are accepted the Review Panel chairperson will produce a report of the findings from the outcomes of the Agency Reviews, which will be submitted to the CYSCB Executive. The report will include:

  • An integrated chronology of relevant events
  • Summary of involvement of the relevant agencies
  • Analysis
  • Conclusion
  • Agency recommendations
  • Review Panel recommendations

The CYSCB Executive will consider the Review Panel report and ensure the relevant agencies produce an action plan to be presented at the next CYSCB for ratification.

The Lead Officer (Quality Assurance) will audit the implementation progress within six months of ratification by the CYSCB.


Appendix 1 - Ways of Dealing with Conflict



There are five common ways of dealing with conflict. Learning about the alternative means of handling conflict gives us a wider choice of actions to employ in any given situation and makes us better able to tailor our responses to the situation. Although listed below in an order of increasing elegance, the reality is that each of us utilises each of these ways of dealing with conflict at least some of the time. We approach conflict in the way that we believe will be most helpful to us in our life. Our style for dealing with conflict will change with the circumstances.

Denial or Withdrawal



With this approach, a person attempts to get rid of conflict by denying that it exists. He or she simply refuses to acknowledge it. Usually, however, the conflict does not go away. It grows to the point that it becomes unmanageable. When the issue and the timing are not critical, denial may be a productive way to deal with conflict.

Suppression or Smoothing Over



"We run a happy ship here." "Nice people don't fight." A person using suppression plays down differences and does not recognise the positive aspects of handling the conflict openly. The source of the conflict rarely goes away. Suppression may, however, be employed when it is more important to preserve a relationship than to deal with a relatively insignificant issue.
Power or Dominance

Power is often used to settle differences. Power may be vested in one's authority or position. Power may take the form of a majority (as in voting) or a persuasive minority. Power strategies result in winners and losers. The losers do not support a final decision in the same way the winners do. Future meetings of a group may be marred by the conscious or unconscious renewal of the struggle previously "settled" by the use of power. In some instances, especially where other forms of handling conflict are not effective, power strategies may be necessary.
Compromise or Negotiation

Although regarded as a virtue, compromise ("you give a little, I'll give a little, and we'll meet each other half-way") has some serious drawbacks. Such bargaining often causes both sides to assume initial inflated positions, since they are aware that they are going to have to "give a little" and want to buffer the loss. The compromise solution may be watered down or weakened to the point where it will not be effective. There may be little real commitment by any of the parties. Still, there are times when compromise makes sense, such as when resources are limited or a speedy decision needs to be made.
Integration or Collaboration

This approach suggests that all parties to the conflict recognise the interests and abilities of the others. Each individual's interests, positive intentions and desired outcomes are thoroughly explored in an effort to solve the problems in a maximising way. Participants are expected to modify and develop their original views as work progresses.

Participants come to appreciate that the apparent presenting problem does not need to limit their discussions. Participants are encouraged to express the full breadth and depth of their interests, with each participant seeking to identify "value" that they can bring to the discussion and the maximised satisfaction of underlying interests and intentions.