10.2 Resolving Professional Disagreements

SCOPE OF THIS CHAPTER

The scope of this document relates to all individuals who work as ‘professionals’ with children, young people and carers in Norfolk whether they are working in a paid or voluntary capacity in the statutory or voluntary sector.

1. Introduction

Professional disagreements should be seen as part of ‘healthy’ professional working relationships and practitioners should be encouraged to give or receive professional challenge in a constructive and positive way. The protocol is to assist practitioners in finding a resolution when they have a professional disagreement in relation to the safeguarding of children and young people. For disputes within agencies, in house procedures should be followed. This protocol relates to the resolution of differences between agencies.

Problem resolution is an integral part of professional co-operation and joint working to safeguard children and it is important to:

• Ensure professional disputes do not put children at risk or obscure the focus on the child.
• Ensure professional disputes 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 to promote resolution via amendment to protocols and procedures.
• Establish a culture that is reflective, respectful, solution-focused and open to challenge.

The first and key principle should be that it is everyone’s professional responsibility to problem solve and come to an agreed resolution at the earliest opportunity, always keeping in mind the child’s safety and welfare.

All agencies are responsible for ensuring their staff are competent and supported to escalate appropriately intra and inter-agency concerns and disagreements about a child’s wellbeing. Agencies/professionals should always be prepared to review decisions and plans with an open mind and revise decisions in light of new information. Regardless of the role/level of expertise, all individuals concerned about a decision/plan have the right and duty to challenge if they think a child’s safety or welfare has been compromised.

2. Examples of Professional Disagreement:

• Dispute at the point of referral due to differing opinions about thresholds.
• A professional is concerned about the action / inaction of another professional in relation to a child or family member.
• Disagreement about decision making and a course of action to be taken for example whether there should be a Child Protection Case Conference or whether a case should be closed.
• Dissent at / arising from a Child Protection Case Conference. (see Appendix 1)
• Dissent arising from the implementation of a CP Plan.
• Disagreement over information sharing.
• Disagreement over an assessment and differences around professional analysis and joint decision making.
• Disagreement over the provision of services.
• An agency or professional is concerned there is drift in a case.
• Disagreement arising over one or more professionals colluding with the parents / carers and over identification with parental issues rather than focusing on the child’s welfare.

3. Professional Resolution and Escalation Process:

The principles of Signs of Safety (SoS) should be adopted in the management of all professional disagreements to ensure the process is transparent and robust. The SoS approach will enable professionals to slow their thinking down in order to identify strengths and areas of concerns in a child’s circumstances and articulate what needs to happen next.

Most disagreements should and can be resolved between the staff working directly with the child if they are adhering to the key principles. Disputes should be resolved within an appropriate timescale in order to protect the child from immediate or future or harm, or within a minimum of five working days. Clear records should be kept of disagreements and resolutions reached by all parties. In particular this must include written confirmation between the parties about an agreed outcome of the resolutions and how any outstanding issues will be addressed within a specified timescale.

In the event that staff working directly with the child cannot resolve the disagreement and need to involve more senior managers or safeguarding advisers a four stage process can be followed as set out below. Escalation can be via telephone, face to face meeting or teleconference calls. NB Not all organisations follow this hierarchical order; escalation routes for individual agencies’ is outlined in Appendix 2.

Stage One: Direct Professional to Professional Discussion.
Differences of opinion or judgement should be discussed between frontline professionals to achieve a shared understanding and agree a resolution and plan. If professionals are unable to resolve differences within time scale, the disagreement should be escalated to stage two.

Stage Two: Direct First Line Manager to First Line Manager Discussion.
If stage one fails to resolve the issue then each professional should discuss the issue with their first line manager or safeguarding supervisor/Named Nurse. The first line manager should then liaise with the other professional’s line manager in an attempt to reach a resolution. If a resolution cannot be reached, the disagreement should be escalated to stage three.

Stage Three: Senior Manager to Senior Manager Discussion.
If concerns remain unresolved at this stage a senior manager to senior manager discussion should take place to discuss the concerns and convene jointly a SoS Resolving Professional Disagreements Meeting with the practitioners and first line managers. Advice and support should also be sought from the designated safeguarding children professional within their agency.

Stage Four: Norfolk Safeguarding Children Partnership (NSCP) Resolution Panel chaired by the NSCP Independent Scrutineer.
In the unlikely event that the issue is not resolved by the steps described above and/or the discussions raise significant policy issues, the matter should be referred urgently to the NSCP for resolution. This should include forwarding a written account of the dispute and what attempts have been made to resolve this. The NSCP Independent Scrutineer who will convene a resolution panel made up of senior representatives from the statutory and voluntary organisations within the NSCP.

At any stage in the process, it may be appropriate to seek expert advice to ensure resolution is informed by evidence based best practice.

4. Learning from Professional Disagreements and Escalation:

When the issue is resolved, any general issues should be identified and referred to the agency’s representative within the NSCP for consideration by the relevant NSCP sub-group to inform future learning. Norfolk partners will also be expected to support the process of resolving disagreement and provide evidence of how it works in practice in the Section 11 Safeguarding self-assessment returns.

It may also be useful for individuals to debrief following some disputes in order to underpin and support continuing effective working relationship.

5. Freedom to speak up (Whistle Blowing):

Staff, through fears about repercussions, may find it difficult to raise child protection concerns about colleagues or managers. Senior managers in each organisation should ensure the provision of a well-publicised ‘whistle blowing’ or ‘speak out’ procedure that provides alternative methods of reporting concerns. A leaflet should also be available to publicise the whistle blowing procedure in each partner agency.

Appendix 1 – Dissent at/arising from a Child Protection Conference
Appendix 2 – Escalation Routes for Individual Agencies