Agenda item

To consider a progress report on individual risks identified in the Council's Strategic Risk Register.

The Committee considered a progress report in relation to the individual risks identified on the Strategic Risk Register, specifically in relation to risks regarding ‘Failure to keep people safe’. The Committee discussed plans to control and mitigate the risks with Ms Smith, Deputy Director of People (Adult Services), who had attended on behalf of the strategic risk owner, Mrs Curtis, Director of People.

Ms Smith began by outlining the overarching systems and procedures in place to mitigate against the sub-risk of ‘Death, serious injury or harm of a vulnerable adult / child’. She explained the role of both the Adults and Children’s Safeguarding Boards, which had an overseeing and investigative role in relation to all incidents and untoward circumstances relating to vulnerable adults and children. She went on to describe the policies and procedures in place at an organisational level within the Council, including the induction process for employees within the People Directorate, including job specific roles and a range of mandatory courses.

It was explained to the Committee that a number of services were registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC), which led to a separate regulatory and assessment procedure. There were also specific codes of conduct that applied in relation to certain services. At an operational level, it was explained that service areas were subject to risk assessment procedures, some of which were service specific and some being job role specific. Mechanisms were also in place to receive feedback, via incident reporting procedures and comments and compliments recording.

The Committee was informed that external providers of services were bound by many of the same policies and procedures that applied to the Council, as well as the contract monitoring procedures that were in place. Ms Smith went on to explain the escalation procedures that were in place when things did go wrong. However, to minimise the risk of mistakes being made, she stressed that the best protection methods were achieved by ensuring that staff were trained and equipped as best as possible.

Ms Smith responded to a number of questions from the Committee. In relation to which were the top areas of concern, she explained that these were the administering of medication in an unregulated setting, where staff were operating unsupervised and also supporting people with challenging behaviour. Asked what were the main challenges, she explained that the unpredictable nature of dealing with human situations had the potential to be a continuing high risk situation and that ensuring staff were well trained was the best way to deal with that risk.

The Committee questioned the robustness of procedures that were in place when things did go wrong. Ms Smith explained that a situation would be responded to very quickly, with responsibility being adopted by an overarching safeguarding lead. She also explained the role of the Allegations Manager, who would ensure that a response to a complaint was appropriate.

Responding to questions relating to the net risk score of 3 out of 5 on the register, Ms Smith explained the appropriateness of that rating in relation to risks involving vulnerable people, together with the fact that such a rating was unlikely to improve. She stressed the importance of the Council doing everything possible to reduce the risk.

The Committee discussed the role of family carers and the risks that were prevalent in relation to that role. It was explained that if a complex administering of medication was required to be undertaken by a family member, a district nurse would be involved, although it was acknowledged that there was no specific regulation framework in place for family carers. Mr Jack, Chief Executive, added that risks in relation to family members were very difficult to manage and it was extremely important that regular medication reviews took place.

The Committee asked questions about whether the register took into account the severity of individual risks. It was explained that individual risk assessments in relation to specific tasks or job roles were more detailed and took such factors into account. In relation to how the Council monitored the staff training of external service providers, Ms Smith explained that regular monitoring took place and measures were also overseen by the CQC and Ofsted.

The Committee pointed out the net score of 15 in relation to the sub-risk, ‘Failing to keep people safe’ and questioned whether the rating was considered to be acceptable. Ms Smith explained that when dealing with such a range of variable situations, the risk would always be high, regardless of the actions taken by the Council. Taking all factors into account, the net score of 15 was likely to remain. Mr Jack added that in relation to a vulnerable child, more robust procedures would be implemented, although it remained impossible to eliminate all risk. Whilst actions could be taken that were considered reasonable in the circumstances, it was not possible to guard against unpredicted occurrences.

The Committee asked about high risk net scores within the People Directorate and it was agreed that the risks would be reported to a future meeting of the Committee.

The Committee thanked Ms Smith for her attendance and agreed:

1.      To note the report.

2.      To receive a report on high risk net scores at a future meeting of the Committee.

Background papers:  None.