The Analysis of a Social Work Case
This following report will analyse two serious case reviews one being an adult case and one being a child case. The reviews will then be compared however focusing on the adult case in more detail. Common issues between both cases will be then be discussed and media coverage will also be researched. A serious case review must be carried out in the event of a death or reported serious harm to a child or vulnerable adult in England stated by (Garboden M 2011). Serious case reviews establish what lessons should be learnt from the case and discusses the way in which local professionals and organisations work individually and together to safeguard individuals. They also make an important contribution to understanding what happens in circumstances of significant harm. The lessons learnt from the serious case reviews should then be acted on quickly and consideration of how to disseminate the learning should be looked at from the start stated on (Pams lecture notes). Although the cases are set out quite similar the reasons for both cases are completely different. The child case was carried out because the “Islington Safeguarding Children Board (the LSCB)” conducted a serious case review of the services provided to two primary school children who died as a result of knife wounds during a weekend contact visit to their father stated by (Mokades et al 2011). However the adult case was a result of “mate crime”. The definition of “mate crime” is when vulnerable people are befriended by members of the community who go on to exploit and take advantage of them according to (Williams R 2010). This serious case review examines how opportunities where missed and why they believe Gemma was a victim of “mate crime” then goes on to state recommendations for future practice.
Quality of reports;
The quality of the reports overall are very detailed however Gemma’s adult report is more specific. It comes with a contents page and it’s easier to navigate around and find the specific information that is needed. Although child B and C’s serious case review is not as specific it does start with a better opening as it goes straight into background information. So right from page one it has a clear opening as to why the serious case review is in place and the reasons for this particular case. The quality of the overview report is dependent on the agency management reviews and their chronologies. Acknowledgement is not always given to the time this may take, the training needs of those preparing reports and to the management issues required, stated by (Rose, W 2008). In both serious case reviews they mention improvements on multi agency working, and improvements within the management teams. This highlights that people aren’t learning for serious case reviews or aren’t having the time to make the changes before another serious case review comes out. Common issues;
Focusing on Gemma’s adult case, the main issue’s brought up in her serious case review is in fact missed opportunities and lack of communication. There were several opportunities missed by professionals and no single agency had a full picture of what was happening in Gemma’s life stated by (MacAteer 2010). This is a common issue between both cases as in child B and Cs SCR there were also missed opportunities to assess the specific level of risk to the children from their father. Risk assessments and mental capacity assessments where not completed and this could have been a major cause of this fatal accident that killed Gemma. If mental capacity assessments where undertaken this could have shown Gemma’s mental state and shown she was incredibly vulnerable in the community. There is much evidence in the serious case review that despite the lack of diagnosis, professionals often recognised her difficulties and tried hard to identify her needs and how these could have been met according to (Macteer 2010). The serious case review states...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document