The first time I contributed to a safeguarding review, the overriding conclusion I came to was that the family in question had received good quality care, and professionals had recognised their vulnerability, and tried to address it. And yet: a child came to serious, life-limiting, irreversible harm, and a perpetrator was jailed. What was missing? Professionals didn’t properly inform others about the pieces of the safeguarding jigsaw they held. The context of the wider story was missing. I’ve been reminded of this all-too-familiar finding many times over the years; for example, the headteacher of the school Daniel Pelka attended saying, “If we were aware of the bigger picture of his life or had doubts about [his mother], we would of course have acted differently. We want to see changes where schools are aware of concerns from other agencies which affect our pupils.” We all know that information sharing is essential to proper safeguarding; much of the time it happens well, but we still hear of cases where a lack of it contributes to terrible harm.
This month has seen the publication of statutory guidance to follow in discharging the Information Sharing Duty that we now have as part of our wider child safeguarding responsibilities. In short, if our Information Sharing Duty is met, then we must share relevant information with our safeguarding partners.
As above, sharing information about vulnerable children, their families, and those around them has always been central to safeguarding practice, of course, and effective safeguarding cannot happen without it. It’s also something that causes understandable nervousness amongst clinicians; the tension between our duties of confidentiality, our roles in protecting data, and the need to work with safeguarding processes can feel very challenging. It’s one of the commonest themes in the queries we get as Named GPs. Does this new guidance help resolve this?
It’s certainly backed up by the law: section 16LA of the Children Act 2004 (s16LA), as amended by the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act, to be precise. This, too, is guidance that specifically mentions us as GPs, so we all need to be aware of what it requires of us.
It is directive; if we judge that we have information that is:
- relevant to safeguarding, or the promotion of the child’s welfare,
- if sharing that information with an organisation covered by the duty may facilitate keeping that child safe,
- and the (highly unusual) circumstance of sharing being of greater detriment to the child than not is absent,
then we must share that information, and we should do so in a timely manner, through our agreed local channels. We must also respond to requests from other bodies who share our information sharing duty.
This might feel uncomfortable; as independent practitioners, “must” can sometimes feel professionally challenging. But we can frame this in a different way and view this statutory guidance as something that actually helps remove some of the obstacles to sharing information we encounter. The guidance is clear on this; it is designed to allow us to share information with confidence, knowing we are doing so within a clear lawful framework. For example, it gives useful reassurance that information about people of relevance to the child is covered. There’s confirmation that consent is not needed from a child or their parent to share information; this is distinct from the need for transparency around the fact that information is being shared.
This doesn’t delete our need to be aware of data protection law, nor the common law duty of confidentiality which we hold. Previously, though, we had to actively make a judgment about whether sharing information was a legal requirement. Now, that legal requirement is there, and that should reduce uncertainty.
It’s fair to say that this is still to be tested in the messy, complex world of real-life safeguarding. We don’t yet know how other organisations might respond to the duty, and there’s the potential for GPs to be on the receiving end of requests badged with it. That has administrative and workload implications for us. On the flipside, it removes obstacles that we commonly hear that GPs and their teams encounter, not least the referral rejected because formal consent is absent.
On balance, though, this feels like a positive step. As someone who’s been reading – and contributing to – safeguarding reviews for years, strengthening the vital concept that no single professional can safeguard alone, and we cannot keep children safe without sharing information about them seems welcome indeed.
Article by James Booth