Resolving Professional Difference of Opinion and Escalation

At no time must a difference of opinion detract from ensuring that the child is safeguarded. The child's welfare and safety must remain paramount throughout and it is recognised that practitioners on either side of the discussion will feel they are acting in the child’s best interest. Differences of opinion are welcome as these healthy discussions can lead to a more robust solution.

Safeguarding children and promoting their welfare is a responsibility shared by all organisations which often requires collaboration. This includes appropriate information sharing and working to multi-agency agreed decisions/plans. Occasionally situations arise when workers within one organisation may believe or consider that the actions, inactions or decisions of another do not adequately safeguard a child. Learning from local and national Serious Case Reviews/Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews has highlighted the need for a clear escalation policy that all practitioners can feel confident to use.

Practitioners in all agencies including schools have a duty to act proactively and assertively to ensure that a child's welfare is the paramount consideration. The Local Safeguarding Partners recognise that good practice will sometimes include constructive challenge between workers. This difference of opinion could become evident in day-to-day practice or discussion, or during multi-professional meetings. Therefore, when a professional has a difference of opinion with the practice of another professional on the grounds of the child's welfare they should work with the colleague to first seek to understand the rationale for the decision. If concern still exists for the child's safety and wellbeing after an initial discussion, the practitioner concerned should challenge the practice using this policy. This policy provides workers, Designated Safeguarding Leads and managers with the means to raise concerns they have about decisions made by other practitioner or agencies by:

• Holding solution focussed discussions to avoid a situation/ or resolve a difference of opinion at the earliest opportunity;
• Ensuring a resolution between agencies is found quickly and openly;
• Identifying problem areas in working together where there is a lack of clarity and promote resolution via amendments to multi-agency protocols and procedures.

It is critical that organisations and senior leaders encourage practitioners to escalate if required, and to have appropriate discussions to find the best solution for the child(ren). Opportunities for reflective supervision are critical to enable practitioners to have the space to talk through any differences of opinion, and then feel supported to be able to escalate confidently.

This procedure identifies a non-exhaustive list of potential areas where partnership colleagues may have a difference of opinion, guidance on finding a solution and what steps could be taken;

• A referral not considered to meet the threshold for assessment or involvement by Children's Services;
• Children's Services ask the referrer to gather further information before a referral is progressed;
• There is a difference of opinion as to whether the child protection procedures should be invoked;
• There is a difference of opinion between Children's Services and the Police as to whether or not investigations/enquiries should progress under a single or joint agency basis;
• There are different views over the sharing of information and/or provision or services;
• There is a difference of opinion over the outcome of any assessment and whether the appropriate action plan is in place to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child;
• A difference of opinion over the roles and responsibilities of the different organisations involved;
• Concerns relating to the action or lack of action in progressing plans;
• There is a difference of opinion over a decision by any agency working with the child to close the case and cease involvement with the family.

Most differences of opinion can be resolved through discussion and negotiation. The practitioners involved should attempt to resolve differences through discussion within one working day to find a solution for the child, but if they are unable to do so, this must be reported by them to their line manager / team manager. This is recognised as day-to-day practice to enable a coordinated and consistent multi-agency response to find a solution.

In cases where a concern is ongoing, or progress is slow, it may be useful to instigate a professionals meeting to understand the risks and lived experience for the child. Most issues or concerns can be resolved, through discussion by the relevant line managers / team manager. This contact should take place within twenty-four hours. The purpose of this contact is to review the available information and to resolve the concern. It may be helpful to consider the involvement of the designated or named professional at this stage.

Any action agreed should be recorded and shared with relevant managers and saved on the child's file held by each involved agency.

Where it is not possible to resolve the matter at stage one, the professionals involved are expected to seek solutions at the next managerial level or appropriate safeguarding lead, between the service/organisations concerned within 24 hours. This is a regular occurrence and should be seen as standard practice to support resolutions for the child.

The issue must then be considered at that management level, with direct communication taking place with the designated professional or named professional for safeguarding within the individual agency that raised the matter.

Any action agreed should be fed back immediately to the relevant practitioners involved, and the detail of the escalation and agreements reached should be recorded on the child's file held by each involved agency. The details should also be shared with the Safeguarding Children Partnership Business Manager as evidence of escalation.

On the rare occasion that the difference of opinion cannot be resolved at stage two, the matter must be referred to a senior manager with responsibility for safeguarding who will consider the matter with their equivalent level of management within the concerned agency within 24 hours.

The purpose of escalating the issue to this level is to reach a position where differing professional opinions have been taken into account and efforts made to explore whether the matter has arisen through lack of clarity or understanding in the professional dialogue. Ultimately a decision will need to be reached where agencies agree a way forward where the interests of the child take precedence over a professional stalemate.

Any action agreed should be fed back immediately to the relevant practitioners involved, and the detail of the escalation and agreements reached should be recorded on the child's file held by each involved agency. The details should also be shared with the Safeguarding Children Partnership Business Manager as evidence of escalation.

In the unlikely event that the difference of opinion remains unresolved, the matter must be referred to the departmental head with lead responsibility for safeguarding in both/all involved agencies, who will report the matter to the relevant local Statutory Safeguarding Children Partners. They will also instigate a meeting of senior managers with operational responsibility for the case within a maximum of 48 hours. You may wish to consider an independent chair.  This meeting will review the issues at hand and provide a final opportunity for the involved agencies to ensure that there is a full understanding of the issues before a decision is finalised. The Chair of this meeting will then report on issues arising from this process to the Case Review Subgroup of the local Multi-Agency Safeguarding Children Partnership.

In all cases where it has not been possible to resolve differences and/or where there may be lessons to be learned for future practice, consideration should be given to holding a multi-agency case review.

At any stage of the process, any action agreed should be fed back immediately to the professionals involved, and the detail of the conflict and agreements reached should be saved on the child's file held by each involved agency.

All differences of opinion over appropriate intervention or support for a child should be resolved in a timely way so that the welfare of the child remains paramount. In some situations, it is essential to instigate all of the stages within a short period of time so that the safety of the child is not compromised. However, if a child is thought to be at risk of immediate harm the designated safeguarding lead/line manager in your agency should be informed immediately. 

If the professional feels the child is at risk of imminent harm they should use their professional judgement and as appropriate dial 999 and ask for Police assistance.

If the process highlights gaps in policies and procedures this must be brought to the attention of the Local Statutory Safeguarding Children Partners and referred to the Berkshire Child Protection Policy and Procedures Sub Group.