Managing Differing Professional Views - Solution Finding Process - Stage One – Four

It is recognised that working with adults at risk, children, and families can be difficult and complex. It often involves dealing with uncertainty and making important, complex judgments on the basis of, at times, incomplete information, under demanding timelines, in what may be changing or difficult circumstances.

This practice guidance provides a framework for a solution-finding process where there are differences in professional views held between practitioners and agencies. It provides an agreed inter-agency method for professionals to follow when they hold different professional views and need to find solutions. This is an integral part of professional co-operation and joint working to safeguard both adults and children. This helps to: -

• Ensure professional differences do not put adults and children at risk or obscure the focus on the child or adult;
• Ensure professional differences between agencies are resolved in a timely, open, and constructive manner;
• Identify problem areas in working together where there is a lack of clarity and promote resolution via amendment to protocols and procedures;
• Establishes a culture that is reflective, respectful, solution focused and open to challenge.

The quality of relationships between professionals and multi-agency safeguarding partners determines the effectiveness of Jersey’s safeguarding system. Being strengths and relationship based is essential in inter-agency working, and this approach needs to be modelled and promoted through management and leadership to embed it in practice.  Strong multi-agency relational working together supports effective information sharing and can lead to improved coherence and resource allocation, helping to ensure clients receive the most appropriate support at the right time.

The Safeguarding Partnership (SP) Jersey expects an interagency culture where different professional views and debate are seen as normal and expected. Effective safeguarding depends on how we communicate and think collectively across agencies and hierarchies. This practice guidance provides a way to find solutions when views differ and tensions arise. It replaces the language of dispute and escalation with the language of dialogue, reflection and shared understanding. As building a respectful space for practitioners to manage professional discussions and gain insight into each other’s perspective is crucial to improving outcomes for the individuals we have a duty to care for. Taking into account that the use of this process must, at all times, remain focused on the child and adult at risk and should never result in a child or adult being left in a situation of risk whilst the solution finding process is underway, (see Appendix 1: Relational Safeguarding Ideas and Appendix 2: Solution Finding Process Flow Chart Ideas).

Good practice expects constructive professional discussion to happen regularly, as this is a cornerstone of working together. However, this may not always be easy to manage, as each agency has their own culture and identity. Working inter-professionally requires us to develop an interprofessional identity so we can act together while remaining grounded in our own disciplines (see Appendix 3: Relational Safeguarding: Key Ideas. Relationship models in safeguarding focus on building trust whilst navigating professional differences. Practitioners must be enabled to use professional curiosity and bring forward respectful challenge with the aim of finding solutions as swiftly as possible.

Direct, respectful professional-to-professional communication is one of the means by which differences of opinion may be resolved. Tensions should be viewed as opportunities to have conversations that clarify misinterpretations, fully understand another’s concerns, or an agency’s intentions. When in conversation with another practitioner, hierarchies should not be visible, as all practitioners’ and agencies’ voices’ should be valued and regarded as holding equal importance. Conversations should focus on the needs of the children, families and adults with care and support needs we are working with, as improved understanding is central to informed decision making. Conversations should not be defensive; they should be seen as chances to actively listen and expand the collective understanding of the often complex situations we work within.

Practitioners should be willing (and enabled by their agencies) to reconsider their views in light of different perspectives from other partner agencies. All practitioners and agencies must be willing to re-examine and reframe their assessments where a different perspective brings new understanding or previously unknown information. Professional discussion should be initiated whenever there are concerns about decisions or actions that do not meet the multi-agency agreement.

The SP Jersey expects all practitioners and managers to work collaboratively. For children, the Children and Young People (Jersey) Law 2022 and commensurate statutory guidance set working together in statute (see Children and Young People Jersey Law 2022 Statutory Guidance). Where adults are concerned, Jersey follows best practice as set out in the Care Act 2014 (UK) and local shadow Multi-Agency Safeguarding Arrangements for Adults.

Practitioners should initiate conversations with each other directly and promptly, with the aim of finding solutions when they hold different professional views. Managers should create safe and reflective spaces for professional dialogue to help build an interprofessional identity in which trust can be established. SP Jersey Core Procedures, practice guidance, and training aim to equip practitioners and to give them confidence in their voices when working together, using professional reflective dialogue to resolve differences, which is viewed as standard practice – see SP Jersey Training.

Stage One and Two of the Solution Finding Process - focuses on those open and honest discussions which should happen in a healthy and safe safeguarding culture. It would be relatively common and expected that cases with complexity may lead to different professional views around case management. This practice guidance recommends the use of tools such as single agency supervision, multi-agency reflective supervision, and multi-disciplinary team meetings (MDTs) to understand not just risk but holistic interagency agreement around case management.

Stage Three of the Solution Finding Process – This stage should be used where suitable solutions have not been found through those more common Stage One and Two discussions. It is a less common requirement, reserved for cases where solutions cannot be achieved without the involvement of Professional Leads. At this stage, tools which may be useful to consider include Professional Leads calling a Fresh Look Meeting.

Stage Four – This stage must be used where solutions cannot be found at Stage Three. This would be an unusual requirement – where solutions cannot be found without Safeguarding Partners oversight and decision making.

When a range of practitioners and agencies are undertaking assessments and providing services for people, there will inevitably be times when perspectives and opinions differ, and conflicting views may give rise to challenge. This is particularly likely to occur when assessing need and risk and making decisions about the best ways forward to meet a client's identified needs and achieve optimum outcomes.

There may also be differing views about who is best placed to provide interventions and how to make the best use of available resources to achieve the desired outcomes. Challenge can occur between any partner agency; crucially, this practice guidance should not be seen as applying only to decisions made by children’s or adults’ social care services. All agencies working with children and adults with care and support needs should consider its use to find solutions to their practice dilemmas.

Examples of situations where practitioner concerns should use professional discussion to resolve differing views include:

• A difference of opinion about whether a referral meets the eligibility criteria for assessment or access to a service, or where they have been discharged from a service, and this may not be in their best interests;
• A practitioner is concerned about what they view as the action and/or inaction of another practitioner or agency;
• A difference of opinion over the sharing of information and/ or provision of service;
• Different views regarding recommendations of any assessment and whether the appropriate plan is in place to safeguard and promote the welfare of the person at the centre of the concern;
• Following a multi-agency meeting, if, after reflection, an attendee feels they did not have sufficient time to explain their professional assessment, they did not feel fully listened to, and/or are subsequently unhappy or do not agree with decisions made and were unable to state this at the time.

This procedure cannot name all eventualities, and there will be other examples in practice. The aim must be to find solutions to concerns at the earliest possible stage, always keeping in mind that the needs of the person at the centre of the concerns, safety and welfare, remain the paramount focus.

The timescales for completion of the Solution Finding Process are set across a Stage One to Four Process (Appendix 1: Relational Safeguarding Ideas and Appendix 2: Solution Finding Process Flow Chart Ideas).

In general, the initiation of stages one to four should happen within one working day of being made aware of concerns, aiming to find suitable solutions through collaborative working within five working days. In most cases, solutions will be found at level one.  However, where required, the process should be followed to the next relevant stage if there are problems in finding suitable solutions.

This practice guidance takes into account that arranging multi-agency meetings may take time. The welfare and safety of the clients remain paramount, and any decision to wait for such meetings should not compromise a person’s safety or wellbeing. If waiting for meetings to be held leads to delays in meeting advised timescales, the reasons should be clearly recorded.

At any stage, where children are subject to a child protection plan or they are looked after, notification should be sent to the child’s Independent Reviewing Officer. Who should be invited to any proceeding meeting so they may be able to take further action where required.

If the person is thought to be at risk of immediate harm, the designated safeguarding lead/line manager in your agency should be informed immediately.

If the practitioner or agency feels the person is at risk of immediate harm they should use their professional judgement and as appropriate dial 999 and ask for Police assistance.

Consideration should be given as to whether lessons can be learned from any stage of this Solution Finding Process, either as single or inter agencies, examples may include: -

• Identification of training needs;
• Commissioning needs;
• Needs for amendments to legislation;
• Changes or new multi-agency core practice and practice guidance.

During the solution finding process if the case meets criteria for the consideration of a Serious Case Review, this must be brought to the attention of the SP Jersey Business Team by means of referral – see Rapid Review/SCR Policy.

All organisations should consider methods to gather data in the use of Stage Two to Four of the Solution Finding Process (as outlined in Appendix 1: Relational Safeguarding Ideas. The purpose for collecting this data is to understand the effectiveness of this process. Agencies should share this data bi-annually through their relevant SP Jersey Quality Assurance Subgroup.

Click here to view Appendix 1: Relational Safeguarding Ideas.

Click here to view Appendix 2: Solution Finding Process Flow Chart Ideas.

Click here to view Appendix 3: Relational Safeguarding: Key Ideas.