Kerry Mehta, Head of Children’s Safeguarding, introduced her report that provided an update on the use of audits in social work practice and how these are then used to improve practice.  Audits were considered to be key tools for looking at the quality of practice, allowing an opportunity to understand the impact of services provided on an individual child and their family, and also identify any training gaps. Case auditing is also used by Ofsted as a key part of the inspection and monitoring process.

The Committee was advised that the audit approach sought to consider the impacts of service inputs and then make any changes.  Audits undertaken since October 2017 had been a mixture of ‘deep dive’ audits where case reviews included social workers and social work managers, and a number of ‘dip samples’ where cases were reviewed against outcomes.  The conclusions or outcomes from audits, the submitted report containing identified strengths and areas for development identified recently, were reported to individuals, teams and the Improvement Board, enabling learning from good practice and the highlighting of concerns.  The audits also provided an overview to assess where the organisation was at, and a tool for managers to reflect on.  In response to a query from Councillor Adam Sykes regarding the wider dissemination of learning when audits were undertaken at the individual worker level, the Committee was advised that learning was circulated in the form of key messages, and was not made personal to a named worker.  

Councillor Alan Brighouse queried the response of Social Workers and Team Managers to the presence or input of the Audit Team and any effect this might have on team building, and how the quality of audits undertaken were assured.  In reply it was noted that the success of an audit team would be to not have one as a result of having embedded good practice into Teams.  The approach of the audit team was to work alongside practitioners, rather than to be seen as adversarial.  With regard to audit quality, the Committee was advised that these were moderated within the audit group and by managers.

Councillor Wendy Clements asked whether individual audits were returned to for consideration of any improvement.  It was confirmed that within the cycle of audits there was opportunity to revisit and to measure changes resulting.  The Director for Children, reflecting on Members’ questions, suggested that the word ‘audits’ as a descriptor did not do justice to the process, and that the it might be best to regard them as a case review process or a reflection – at the beginning a practitioner might be challenged, but through the process you improve and go through the cycle again.

Councillor Tony Jones asked whether the Council had picked on any exemplars for audits, rather than solely developing its own.  Simone White, Deputy Director for Children’s Care Services advised that the audits were a developing, rather than a static, process.  Initially focused on compliance, they were now moving towards quality issues: it was considered that in time they would be focused solely on quality as compliance became embedded in the organisation.

Members noted the need to have an assurance as to the audit process and that learning points were being identified and carried through.  To this end it was suggested that Members give further consideration to the audit tool and its use, and review a six month cycle of audits, including their outcomes and how they feeds into training.

RESOLVED – That

(1)  The report be noted; and

(2)  The Committee give further consideration to the undertaking of audits and the audit tool, and undertake a review of a six month cycle of audits, including their outcomes and how they feeds into training, this consideration and review to be in the form of spotlight session.