• contents
• keywords & contacts
• quick guide
• values
• contact us
• search

Context

This policy has been developed in line with the guidance set out in Working Together to Safeguard Children, 2010.  (See paragraph 3.26 and 5.80). This policy is to ensure partner agencies have a quick and straightforward means of resolving professional differences in view of specific cases, in order to safeguard the welfare of children and young people. 

Effective working together depends on resolving disagreements to the satisfaction of workers and agencies, and a belief in a genuine partnership and joint working to safeguard children.

Problem resolution is an integral part of professional cooperation and joint working to safeguard children.  Professional disagreement is only dysfunctional if not resolved in a constructive and timely fashion. 

WHEN ANY PROFESSIONAL CONSIDERS A CHILD IS AT IMMEDIATE RISK OF SIGNIFICANT HARM, THEN THE INDIVIDUAL MUST ENSURE THEIR CONCERNS ARE ESCALATED ON THE SAME WORKING DAY USING ESTABLISHED SAFEGUARDING PROCEDURES.

At no time must professional disagreement detract from ensuring a child is safeguarded.  The child's welfare and safety must remain paramount throughout.

Attempts at problem resolution may leave one worker/agency believing that a child/children may be at risk of significant harm.  This person/agency has responsibility for communicating such concerns through agreed child protection procedures. 

Disagreements could arise in a number for areas, but are most likely to arise around determining levels of need, roles and responsibilities, and the need for action and communication.

Resolving Disagreements

Initial attempts should be taken to resolve the problem; the aim should be to resolve difficulties at practitioner/case worker level between agencies.

When there is recognition that there is a disagreement over a significant issue, which impacts on the safety and welfare of a child, the respective workers must identify explicitly what the problem is and have absolute clarity about the nature of the disagreement and what the respective workers aim to achieve.

It should be recognised that differences in status and/or experience may affect the confidence of some workers to pursue this unsupported.

If unresolved, the problem should be referred by each worker to their respective line manager, for school staff this will be the designated person, who in turn is expected to discuss with their opposite number in the other agency. 

Some examples below:

• Social Worker-Line Manager
• Health Visitor- Designated Nurse for Safeguarding
• Community Midwife-Supervisor of Midwifery
• GP-PCT Named Doctor for Safeguarding (Medical Director)
• Paediatric Staff- Sister.
• Hospital Doctor-Named Doctor for Safeguarding
• Community Mental Health Team-Line manager.
• Staff in schools-designated person in school with Safeguarding responsibility

A clear record must be kept at all stages by all parties. In particular this must include written confirmation between the parties about the nature of  the disagreement(s) and how any outstanding issues will be pursued.

Where professional disagreements remain

If professional disagreements remain unresolved following discussions between respective managers .The matter must be referred to the KSCB representative for each agency involved for resolution.

In the unlikely event that the steps described above do not resolve the issue and /or the discussion has raised significant policy issues, it should be referred to the KSCB Business Manager, who will offer mediation and determine a course of action. This will include reporting to the KSCB Chair, as per the flow chart.

Following the use of the Escalation Policy

It may be useful for individuals to debrief following some disputes in order to promote continuing good working relationships.

Click here to view Escalation Policy Flowchart

End