Information sharing: five top tips to support early intervention

Recent high-profile child protection scandals have turned the spotlight on every corner of safeguarding practice, and the onus on local places to develop robust multi-agency working – supported by systematic information sharing – has never been stronger.

The Centre of Excellence for Information Sharing is supporting local areas to resolve the cultural and organisational information sharing barriers to better multi-agency working.

It recently held an event that brought together practitioners and service managers from 10 multi-agency safeguarding hubs (Mash) to discuss their information sharing issues and share learning, the findings from which will be published in early summer.

The discussions reinforced that the biggest challenge is not information sharing once a safeguarding situation has been identified, but putting in place arrangements that support consistent information sharing to enable agencies to identify situations before they reach crisis point, enabling them to provide early help and intervention.

To help other Mash develop their early intervention approaches, the centre has used the experiences from around the country to compile five top tips on information sharing.

1. Start with the outcome not the information

When designing the service, focus on the outcomes for children and families, and then use that insight to identify the information flows. Draw on day-to-day experiences of practitioners of all levels from a range of agencies; taking this approach ensures a deep understanding of information is built into the service design.

Leicestershire’s family support model was developed using a theoretical family who had multiple and complex needs. Workshops with practitioners from a range of services focused on who held what information about the family and how and when it could be shared.

This enabled service designers to assess information sharing triggers, who needed to be engaged and at what stage, and for practitioners to identify their information sharing responsibilities.

2. Collaborate early and engage widely

Areas that have taken a partnership approach from the outset to designing an information sharing model appropriate to their local requirements have a forum to address issues head-on and overcome barriers.

Partners involved in London Councils’ police-led implementation of a pan-London Mash had varying levels of engagement initially, as many felt their approaches were already fit for purpose. The appointment of a project team to drive the hub’s formation provided an opportunity to assess the strength of the partnership and understand information sharing gaps.

Through workshops, the partnership was able to develop a local approach, supported by each agency identifying and releasing appropriate resources. The 32 boroughs now have a more consistent approach in place.

3. Don’t be afraid to ask questions about consent

The question of gaining parental consent to share information between agencies can be a thorny issue. For cases below the statutory threshold for child protection, the process for managing consent should be agreed by all partners and the practical implications understood.

Consider the implications of the consent approach for new partners who you may wish to join the service in the future. Don’t be afraid to ask for guidance – the Information Commissioner’s Office has best practice advice and guidance available on its website.  

Leicestershire County Council’s information sharing hub, OneView (see box), gathers intelligence on early help cases. These are referred from locality hubs and from other commissioned areas. The consent process was agreed during the service design, and is managed by the locality hub co-ordinator during conversations with the family.

Local authority and some district/borough databases and police records provide a more holistic picture of the family, and are compiled to produce a family summary, which contains notes of contact with different agencies, a timeline of contact and a family tree with additional information.

In the majority of cases, a second trawl of health information would take place once the assigned key worker has gained consent.

The family summary document is used by practitioners to gain a fuller picture of a family before attending a locality hub meeting, where cases are discussed and the appropriate agency for the case will be assigned.

4. Challenge your thresholds

Everyone’s threshold of concern is different and the key to early intervention is to understand when to act, what to act on and what information should be shared to facilitate that.

Working with partners to agree thresholds ensures transparency and builds trust. It is vital that both strategic and operational staff are involved in these conversations.

Provide space to understand and capture the experience of day-to-day engagement with families and match this with the needs and capacity of service delivery.

The consistent application of thresholds within decision making and multi-agency meetings provides transparency in the process and builds trust among agencies, and information on the quality of referrals can be fed back to each agency to be addressed.

5. Use learning from other information sharing models

The centre has found that many information barriers and the solutions are not specific to policy or service area. As many of the challenges relate to organisational culture and cultural challenges that arise from partnership working, it is important to learn how different organisations address these barriers.

Talk to people within multi-agency teams (if more comfortable, talk to people from your own organisation) to find out what information is relevant for cases, how information is shared within a multi-agency team and what the information is used for.

Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council welcomes practitioners from the local area into the Mash to see how they operate.

Practitioners sit with other practitioners from their own organisation to experience how cases come into the hub, the information being collected from each organisation and the benefits of having a full picture of a family’s circumstances.

About the centre
The Centre of Excellence for Information Sharing is funded by four government departments: the Home Office, Department for Work & Pensions, Department of Health, and Department for Communities and Local Government. It works with a selection of local areas to help them break down cultural barriers in order to improve their information sharing and implement lasting change. It then captures good practice and shares it widely to help others overcome similar issues, and to influence change at a national level.
For further information, visit www.informationsharing.org.uk

Camden: Agencies agree referral and consent practices to improve response

Claire Mumby, Camden multi-agency safeguarding hub team manager

Camden set up a Mash in December 2012. The co-located team is made up of the police, children’s social care, probation, integrated youth support, substance misuse, health, including mental health, and education services. Referrals are received from a range of sources, including members of the public, police, the NSPCC and GPs.

Information sharing is a vital part of multi-agency working and, in turn, ensures that families are referred to the most appropriate services and resources so that they receive help as early as possible.

Two case studies illustrate this:  

Case Study 1: Camden Mash received a referral from another local authority notifying it that a woman and her one-year-old child had been placed in a domestic violence refuge in our area. It could have been assumed that the child was now safe so no further action was necessary.

However, the mother’s consent was sought and network checks completed. Police checks highlighted the child’s father had a history of domestic violence, and was known to police for weapons, drugs and sexual offences.

The Mash established from the refuge key worker that the mother was isolated and emotionally vulnerable, and frequently returned to the area she had fled. Meanwhile, health visitors had information that the child’s father had mental health difficulties, and that there had been problems seeing the child.

Following checks, a child and family assessment was recommended.

Case Study 2: Camden Mash received a referral from a school concerned that a mother was exaggerating her child’s health and learning needs. However, she was obstructing independent assessments that would help to confirm if her child had any difficulties. Consent for checks was sought and the Mash identified that the child had lived in several local authorities, had moved GP and school more than six times, and the child’s name had been changed on several occasions.

Network checks identified a concerning pattern of the mother moving area when professionals started to question the authenticity of her child’s needs. This led the Mash to initiate a child protection investigation due to concerns of fabricated illness.

Leicestershire: Children’s needs identified through central information gathering

Ellie Lowe, Leicestershire children’s services early help support services manager

By 2013, it was becoming increasingly clear that a lack of systematic information sharing was contributing to:

Missed opportunities for earlier intervention

Duplication of services in some families – or worse – services providing conflicting responses to families

A reliance on individual worker relationships to provide families a more joined up response and co-working opportunities

Providing services on the basis of presenting issue, rather than getting to grips with factors that caused or contributed to problems occurring, meant the impact of issues such as poverty, debt, offending and domestic violence were in danger of being overlooked. In response, Leicestershire County Council set up OneView to support systematic information sharing across all early help services.

Referrals into Leicestershire early help services go through one of seven multi-agency early help locality hubs that take place every two weeks. At the point referrals are allocated to hub meetings, OneView is contacted to pull together information about the family which is then used to form the basis of discussion and decision making at the hub meeting. OneView provides at-a-glance information which allows partners to quickly summarise the type and range of involvements the family may have had over a five-year period.  

OneView information is tailored, so for hubs it provides data on education, social care, youth offending, housing and anti-social behaviour. The inclusion of police information is imminent, and health information is provided with the written consent of the family.

OneView provides allocated workers a really clear starting point for understanding the needs and issues for the family, as well as the names and contact details for current and recent practitioners who have had involvement with the family.

A significant amount of work was done in establishing OneView to ensure that data sharing agreements were put in place and understood. This was underpinned by workshops with practitioners, strategic managers and chief officers – to achieve the buy-in that was needed to get the approach off the ground. Creating an environment where it was seen as both safe and normal to share information has had a significant impact on culture and practice – two years on its first “super-hub” has been created to incorporate health services - enabling families to get the timely and holistic response they need.