View Working Together View Working Together

CHAPTER 39: Resolution of Professional Disagreement (REVISED - NOV 09)

AMENDMENT - NOVEMBER 2009

Sections 1 and 2 of this chapter were revised in November 2009 in order to simplify the language, reinforce the centrality of the child and ensure the procedures apply equally to disputes between all agencies as between social care and other agencies. 


Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. Dissent at Enquiry Stage
  3. Dissent at/Arising From Child Protection Conference
  4. Dissent Regarding Implementation of the Child Protection Plan
  5. Where Professional Differences Remain


1. INTRODUCTION

1.1

In any dispute or situation where professionals have differing views concerning the actions needed to protect the welfare of a child two key principles apply:·

  • Get it resolved, and
  • Get it resolved promptly.
1.2 It is not sufficient to put your dissatisfactions in writing and to leave a child in a situation where their welfare is compromised. Any professional concerned about another individual agency’s response to a child’s situation is responsible for pursuing the matter to resolution without delay.


2. DISSENT AT ENQUIRY STAGE

2.1

Disagreements can occur at any time but typically occur when:

  • Further information is required from the referrer before the referral is progressed.
  • Referrals are not considered to satisfy an agency’s thresholds for involvement or the response to a referral takes too long, or is pitched at a lower or higher level than was hoped for by the referrer.
  • Where there is disagreement about the course of action on a long term case. 
2.2 If the professionals involved are unable to resolve differences through discussion and/or meeting within a timescale, which is acceptable to both of them and which does not compromise the welfare of the child, their disagreement must be addressed without delay by more experienced / more senior staff.
2.3 With respect to most day to day difficulties this will require liaison between first line managers in relevant agencies, e.g.:
  • A Children’s Social Care first line manager
  • A Detective Sergeant in the CAIU. A Senior Health Visitor / Nurse / GP
  • A Designated Teacher/ Deputy Head
2.4 Alternatively, and more commonly in health services, input may be sought directly from designated doctor or nurse in preference to use of line management.
2.5 Records of discussions must be maintained by all the agencies involved.


3. DISSENT AT / ARISING FROM CHILD PROTECTION CONFERENCE

3.1 If the chair of a conference is unable to achieve a consensus as to whether the child should have a Child Protection Plan or whether the Child Protection Plan should be discontinued, s/he will make a decision and note any dissenting views.
3.2 The agency or individual who dissents from the chair's decision must determine whether s/he wishes to further challenge the result.
3.3 In the unlikely event that the dissenting professional believes the decision reached by the chair places a child at (further) risk of Significant Harm, s/he should formally raise the matter with her/his agency's designated doctor / nurse / teacher.
3.4 If that designated doctor / teacher / nurse concurs with the concerns of the professional, s/he should immediately alert the safeguarding manager in the local authority (in the context of a small local authority, it is acknowledged that this may on occasions, be the person who actually chaired the conference in dispute).
3.5

In the light of the representations made, the safeguarding manager must determine whether to:

  • Uphold the decision reached by the conference chair or
  • Require that a review conference be brought forward
3.6 In the unlikely event the outcome of these alternate steps fail to satisfy the concerned professional, the issue should be put as a matter of urgency to the LSCB chair who can determine what further responses (if any) are a justifiable and proportionate response.


4. DISSENT REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROTECTION PLAN

4.1 Concern or disagreement may arise over another professional's decisions, actions or lack of actions in the implementation of the Child Protection Plan, including Core Group meetings.
4.2 The line managers of the professionals involved should first address these concerns.
4.3 If agreement cannot be reached following discussions between the above 'first line' managers, the issue must be referred without delay through the line management to the equivalent of service manager / detective inspector / head teacher or other designated professional.
4.4 Alternatively, and more commonly in health services, input may be sought directly from designated doctor or nurse in preference to use of line management.


5. WHERE PROFESSIONAL DIFFERENCES REMAIN

5.1 If professional disagreements remain unresolved, the matter must be referred to the heads of service for each agency involved.
5.2 In the unlikely event that the issue is not resolved by the steps described above and/or the discussions raise significant policy issues, it may be helpful to convene a LSCB sub-committee which has the brief to consider policy and practice or serious cases.

End