This is social work: Accepted disposal
This Is Social Work: Accepted disposal
Joining our host Kate Metcalf are colleagues from Social Work England's Case Examiner team, Elaine Weinbren and Mike Lupson.
Welcome to This Is Social Work, a podcast from the specialist regulator for social workers, Social Work England. Hosted by our very own regional engagement leads and together with people with lived and learned experience of social work, we'll be exploring the social work profession in more depth.
Kate
Welcome to this podcast. I am Kate Metcalf, Regional Engagement Lead at Social Work England, covering the south of the country, and I'm a registered social worker. And with me today, I have two of my colleagues from our fitness to practice directorate, and I'm very happy to pass over to them to introduce themselves. So over to you, Elaine, and then Mike. Please introduce yourself and what do you do?
Elaine
Good morning, I'm Elaine Weinbrun. I'm a professional case examiner, which means that I am a registered social worker. So whilst I am working for Social Work England making decisions, I also still need to be practicing as a social worker. So I work mainly in the field of fostering.
Kate
That's brilliant. Thanks, Elaine. And Mike?
Mike
Yeah, hi, my name's Mike Lupson. I'm a lay case examiner. So that means I'm not a social worker, nor have I ever been. And lay people bring their professional expertise from elsewhere. And we always work together with a professional case examiner when we make our decision.
Kate
That's wonderful. Thank you. And I know that for the purpose of this podcast and our listeners, we are going to be talking about one of the big things that case examiners do in the fitness to practice system here at Social Work England, the organisation that regulates social workers.
We're going to be talking about something called accepted disposal, which is part of our fitness to practice decision making process. And it's the bit that the case examiners do. So I'm going to just pass back to you, going to dive straight in and ask you both, what does accepted disposal mean? Can you explain that to the people listening today?
Mike
Yeah, so accepted disposal, it's a way of concluding a case without the need for it to go through to a hearing.
It's a power that was given to Social Work England in 2019, and it was the first regulator to have the full suite of powers, which means that certainly as of today, we can resolve cases the same way adjudicators can were it to go to a hearing.
The only difference is that the social worker has to accept the proposal, but they're perfectly entitled not to. So if they agree with what we've said, the case can then be resolved. And the idea behind it is it just makes things a lot quicker. And the idea is that it will be less adversarial, I think is the word, for people who wouldn't normally have to go through to a hearing.
Kate
That's really nice and clear. Thank you. And Elaine, do you want to add into that? Because accepted disposal is a funny one, isn't it? Because it wasn't really there with the previous regulator, is my understanding.
Elaine
No, not at all. I mean, previously, if you were with HCPC, which was our old regulator, you would have gone through various iterations of panels. So I think there's one called ICP, which I don't want to guess what that acronym means, but I think that was like an initial panel that did a sort of an assessment of it. And then you would go through straight to panels. So this is, it was quite exciting and still is really, because we are still the only regulator I think to date. I think some are still starting to introduce it now. But it just means that where we've come up with a way of disposing of the case, the social worker gets to accept it.
Kate
Well, that's kind of made it more clear for me as well, actually. And I'm often talking about accepted disposal in my engagement work. So that's much more clear as to why it's called that. And there's this rule, isn't there? this rule called the 12G rule. Is that what we're talking about here?
Elaine
12G, this was introduced in, I'm going to say 2022, and I'm sure Michael, correct me if I'm wrong, means that people can ask for a review of our decision. So whether that's a complainant, a social worker or the organisation itself, the regulator can also ask to review a case examiner decision because obviously we're independent, but also the PSA who regulate Social Work England, they can also ask.
And it'll be instances where there's either been a material flaw, so they think the disposal that we've come up with maybe is not severe enough for the conduct or vice versa, it's too lenient.
Or equally, if there's been new information that's been presented. So there's a team that will assess that to look at whether it meets the criteria.
Kate
And it's important, isn't it, at this point, you've just mentioned the team, to emphasise for listeners that every major decision point through the fitness to practice process is made with a pair of registered social workers' eyes and ears. There's always a registered social worker in the mix, hence you being one of the case examiners as part of this stage in the process.
Elaine
Yeah, there's always a professional lay. So even at adjudicator stage, again, it follows that same pattern that a social worker will have been involved who's got current knowledge of the social work profession.
Kate
Yeah, that's really helpful. Thank you. And I wanted to ask you both about the nature of accepted disposal. So now we know what it is, we've got that technical definition and its purpose. I wanted to dig a bit deeper on its two-way communication process. You know, lots of social workers are understandably quite fearful of the fitness of practice process, and we know that it takes its toll on social workers and that it can be a strain. So what could we, by way of reassurance, what could we say in terms of the two-way communication process of this part of the process? Mike, I wonder if you could shed some light on that?
Mike
Yeah, I suppose the first thing to say with accepted disposal is that a social worker is totally, they're able to reject any proposal that we make on it. So that it's not a case of it's going to be sort of done to the social worker. It's very much that they will be involved in resolving the case at that stage. It's not a kind of a negotiation on it.
So as case examiners, we will look at the evidence, we'll make the decision. impartially as to what we feel is the right outcome. Because we have to ensure that it's fair to all parties, and that includes not only the social worker, but we have to meet the overarching objective, which is around essentially protecting the public.
However, when we've come to make our decisions, a key part of how we decide what we think needs to happen is looking at a stage which is called impairment, which is essentially what's the risk now and in the future. And if it goes gets through to that stage, it's really, really helpful for us to have the social worker to have been interacting with the regulator to provide us submissions, reflection around what's alleged to have happened.
Kate
Yeah.
Mike
And to tell us about essentially what has changed, what have they done? Have they done any training? Is there any learning that they've taken from us from the situation? And that really helps us to assess what the risk is moving forwards. When we don't have that engagement, it does tie our hands a little bit because we're almost sort of backed into a corner. And if we don't have the social worker's view, it does limit what we can do with the case. So, I mean, from my side, I think it's so helpful when social workers engage with the process.
Kate
And that's the bit I was hoping you would emphasise, actually. It's that key importance of engagement, isn't it?
And we say that about the whole fitness to practice process, the engagement with the social worker in question is so so important, not just to ensure that they're held central throughout the process, but also to ensure that they feel like they're participating and fully understanding what's going on. And it's a benefit of the process, isn't it, at this stage, Elaine? If we're at the case examination stage, that engagement from the social worker is key, isn't it?
Elaine
Yeah, I think just to sort of build on what Mike was saying, what social workers may be I know myself, if something was to go in, your immediate thought is, I'm going to be struck off, or it's going to be coming quite serious. But actually, they're quite few and far between.
A lot of cases are resolved without it being that. There's lots of different sanctions that we can suggest and that social workers can agree to. But what really helps, like Mike said, is we don't get to see the social worker. We don't get to ask questions. Everything's on the paper. That's at the hearing stage.
So if we've got submissions or information from a social worker that gives us the context, for instance, what they're working with or that, you know, they didn't have training or whatever it happens to be, that just gives you so much more information to then think on balance, what was the right situation, what was going on, and it helps you to reach the right sanction for that social worker.
It's just so invaluable, any input and information that they can give us, and equally what they've done since, because we all know as social workers, you can make a mistake, and it's not about punishing somebody for that mistake. It's about what have you learned from that and how are you moving forward? So are you a risk, like Mike said, now and in the future? So it is very much, it's so important that they try and engage with us.
Kate
And I think just having this conversation with two human beings in the case examination stage should kind of reduce that level of intimidation. Of course it's going to feel daunting, isn't it, if you're that social worker in that position, but just to sort of put a human voice and context onto this, hopefully will just sort of demystify this part of the process and the process in its entirety.
Because actually I just want to pick up on that point as a registered social worker yourself, what you're talking about is a reflective discussion or reflective practice, aren't you?
Elaine
Yeah, completely. I mean, if something's happened, it's not necessarily that you would go off and do a training course, but it might be that you've spoken in supervision about what's happened. It may be if it's things outside of work, it might be that you've done a course, it might be that you've thought about professional boundaries.
It depends on what the thing, what the alleged conduct was, really. But it's so important that you can demonstrate learning from whatever's happened. And that actually you are now safe to practice again. Because that's effectively what we're doing. We're trying, as Mike said, to protect the public.
Kate
Yeah, the sort of reflective nature of what you do. I'm trying to remember the phrase that I've read many, many times when I deliver engagement around this part of the process. The likelihood of a finding of impairment, but I can't remember what the phrase is.
Mike
So I mean, the things we talk about. is the 'risk of repetition' will often be talked about. And then we talk about what the public would expect of the regulator in a situation like that.
I'd say key to both of it is the engagement from the social worker to be able to understand, you know, like Elaine said, what has been done to learn from what's happened, to reflect on it, to put things in place to stop it happening again, because just picking up on one thing you said, Kate, was around the human element of having case examiners involved.
Of course, we completely recognise that we are all human and that we make mistakes. And I think it's really important as case examiners not to lose sight of the fact that this is not just a case number, this is an individual at the end of this case. And that's true in terms of it's not just a social worker who's involved, it could be a really emotive subject for the person who's complained. So we never lose sight of the fact that we are dealing with really impactive things here.
And that's why I think just to loop it back to the 12G process that was mentioned earlier, I think it's an extremely positive step that the regulator's taken because I think we absolutely should be held to account for the decisions we've made. And if there are areas for learning, we're in the exact same boat as the social workers. So we can make mistakes and it's important that we learn from it. doesn't mean that we're never going to be allowed to case examine again.
Kate
No.
Mike
Just like the vast majority of cases that come through to the regulator don't result in somebody being removed from the registry.
Kate
Exactly.
Mike
In fact, I think looking at the stats at the moment, the most common outcome of a case examiner decision is that there's no impairment, so 45% of those cases go down that route. However, without the engagement of the social worker, it's less likely that we're able to resolve it at the earliest stage.
Kate
Yeah, and just that's interesting. So if that's quite a high statistic, isn't it, of no impairment, can you explain why that might be? If we've received a referral, we've triaged it, we've investigated and it's come through to the case examination stage, can you give us like an anonymized sort of example of why something might be no impairment when we've done all that work?
Mike
Yeah, certainly. So I mean, it can be that when we assess the case that we'd actually don't feel that it's going to engage the statutory ground. I won't go into them now, there's eight. in total, the most common you'll see would be perhaps misconduct, for example.
Now it could be that we identify, yes, something has gone wrong. So there has been a departure from the standards, but it would have to be a significant departure for it to engage the statutory ground. And it might be that once we've assessed it, taking everything into account, including the level of risk, that actually we didn't feel it was serious enough as to engage that threshold, and therefore there would be a finding of no impairment.
Or it could be the case that the statutory ground has been engaged. But ultimately, all the work that the social worker has done to put things right, to learn from it, the reflection, the training, testimonials that we've received overwhelmingly suggest that there is a low risk of repetition. And actually, in that circumstance, the public wouldn't expect the regulator to make a finding of impairment, which can be the case in particularly serious cases.
But in the majority, it may well be that we would say, actually, there's no need for a finding of impairment here. And then there's several outcomes that are available to us at that stage. For example, we may wish to advise the social worker as to what they might want to think about, reflect about, to prevent similar things happening again.
Kate
And you've got a number of sort of outcomes, if you like, available to you as case examiners as well. I wonder, Elaine, can you talk to that a little bit? Because I know that depending on whether you think there's a likelihood of a finding of impairment, the options available to you are slightly different, aren't they?
Elaine
Yeah, I mean, as Mike's just touched on, if we reach a conclusion that there's no current impairment, we can do nothing, we can take no further action, but equally we can have unpublished advice or a warning. So it may be that it has engaged statutory gowns, but they've actually done all this work. However, it could have been that the conduct was relatively serious to engage that ground. So what you wanted to do is just advise the social worker or give them the warning that if something were to come before us again, we may then start to question how much have they learned, how much have they remediated?
So it maybe a higher sanction, so that would be those, but they are not published on the register. The options then, once we find an impairment, well, it goes from no further action through advice, warning, we can place conditions, we can spend them for a period, or we can remove from the register. It's a whole suite and it does very much depend.
We've got lots of guidance in terms of the case examiner guidance. We operate from the same sanctions guidance that adjudicators would at a hearing. And it is a case that we will start at the lowest sanction 1st and we will work our way up. We don't do it the other way around. So we would discard kind of things that we don't think are sufficient to protect the public before then moving on to the next stage. But our decisions will provide the rationale as to why we think it needs to be a more restrictive sanction. But we always have to look at the minimum necessary to protect the public.
Kate
I'm glad you mentioned that because I was going to get the two of you to talk a little bit to that. So there's this element, isn't there, like we don't use a sledgehammer to crack a nut and there's this proportionality aspect to your work. And the two of you must be having to be mindful of that all the time when you're jointly reviewing investigation reports for that purpose. And do you look at them together or individually and then regroup? How does that work when you're trying to work out the proportionality? How does that work when you've got two case examiners?
Mike
So first of all, when we receive the evidence, we will look at it independently. And we will kind of form an initial view as to what we think the evidence is telling us. But then a really, really key part of the decision making process is the case conversation that goes on with the lay case examiner and the professional case examiner.
Kate
Yeah.
Mike
And in those circumstances, it's a real opportunity to sort of test each other's rationale, to sort of challenge each other constructively. explain, actually, I've got a very different view to this. This is the piece of evidence as to why I'm reaching that conclusion. What do you think on it? And it's around bringing both the lay perspective and the professional's perspective into it to reach a mutual decision as to what we think is the most proportionate outcome.
And those conversations are so beneficial because regularly you will go into it thinking one thing and then your partner will challenge you on it. And it's really important to kind of be reflective ourselves to think, yes, actually, that's a fair challenge or no, I don't. And that's the way that we make the best decisions, I believe.
Kate
Really helpful. Thank you. And I'm just going to ask the $60 million question here. What happens when you can't reach an agreement? Has that ever happened? And what do you do when that happens?
Mike
Yes, it has happened, yeah, absolutely.
Kate
I can see Elaine smiling now.
Mike
I think that I'd be concerned if it hadn't happened because I think the nature of human decision making is that we will on occasions not agree and that's okay. There is a process in place for that and I should stress that first and foremost we will try everything we can to see if we can come to a mutual decision. So we'll work back through the evidence, we'll challenge each other, we'll have constructive discussions, it may well be that we'll say, you know what, let's pause this discussion. Yeah. Let's come back to it tomorrow. Let's have a more of a think about it.
But ultimately, if you do reach the position where you cannot agree on it, then we have a process whereby we would recuse ourselves from the case. And that would mean that we would put in writing to the operations team to say that we're unable to reach a decision and to ensure fairness in the process that it's now necessary to take ourselves off the case. And what will happen is a new set of case examiners will be allocated to the case. They will have no knowledge of the fact that it's previously been looked at or who's been involved and then they will make the decision and that process is always there if we can't get to the mutual point where we agree.
Kate
Okay, all right, really, really helpful to know. So that is a very independent way, a non-biased prejudiced way to deal with this part of the process. For those listening, if this is all new to someone listening today, they've learned what case examiners do at Social Work England in terms of witness to practice work, how that works and what your responsibilities are.
I suppose it's just important to say, isn't it, that your powers to recommend that a social worker is removed from the register, they do exist, but that recommendation is very rare, isn't it? doesn't happen very often in relation to the number of social workers on the register. I wonder, Elaine, if you want to sort of talk to that in terms of context and proportionality?
Elaine
Yeah, I mean, I think it is still relatively rare when we look at the amount of cases that we deal with. And we are talking the most extreme conduct. But equally in those types of cases, it tends to be where a social worker doesn't want to remediate. Effectively, sometimes they want to come off the register. They no longer wish to practice. So. Had they have been willing to do so, even with some cases, we could have found a different disposal.
Kate
Yeah.
So it could be that whilst the conduct was extremely serious, we could have put conditions in place, we could have done suspension. But if a social worker is openly, because obviously it's still an agreement, it's not something we impose. If they're saying, you know what, I don't want to be a social worker anymore, I'm not willing to do any work, then they tend to be the cases where they are removed because they've accepted that they no longer wish to practice.
Others are more where it's the extreme case. But equally, some of those we will find don't engage, don't want to deal with the case examiners. So equally, they will sometimes go off to hearings, which is unfortunate because like we've said already, if they would have engaged with the process, we can sometimes offer a lesser sanction. But I think they're the main 2 categories. Although Mike looks like he might come in with some more insights.
Kate
What do you think, Mike?
Mike
No, I completely agree. I think statistically it's very low, the amount of cases that go to removal. I think one thing just to build on what Elaine said was there will be cases where they are extremely serious.
Kate
Yeah.
Mike
And actually there's a full acknowledgement from the social worker that it's highly likely that the regulator is going to seek to remove them from the register.
Kate
Yeah.
Mike
And actually the accepted disposal process is very effective in those types of cases as well. because it means that actually there's no need to elongate the process whereby they would be waiting for X amount of time to go to a hearing to receive a decision that they've already kind of accepted is highly likely. And I'm talking about the cases where the vast, vast majority of reasonable people would look at it and say, it's clear that that doesn't align with being a social worker. And in those cases, it can actually reduce the process for that individual because, you know, it can have a huge impact on people's lives when these things go on. So I think in the cases like that, it's a really effective use of the power to reduce the matter going on longer than it needs to.
Kate
And of course, it makes the process more timely and efficient, and it's a smaller drain on the public purse as well. So there are lots of benefits and positive aspects to accepted disposal.
Elaine
Yeah, I think to add as well, just if you think about it, you know, as a social worker, appearing in court is a stressful process. That's the other thing I think to point out is that unfortunately, the majority of social workers don't have representation, so they are representing themselves within the adjudication process. So that's incredibly stressful to go to an extremely formal setting, which it has to be, and present your case. So if you can deal with it at our stage of the process, that does take out the stress of going, representing yourself, providing all your statements, all of those elements of it. So it's much speedier, but a much, I would say, less stressful process to deal with it at an earlier stage.
Kate
Yeah. And what a different difficult job and level of responsibility the two of you have as well.
Mike
I'd say that I absolutely recognise the importance of the decisions that I make. We're supported in terms of the information that we've got, in terms of the training that we're working on, the training that we work on with the team to kind of equip us to make the decisions. And also the fact that we're working in partnership means that actually if something is more prone to be weighing on you, the type of decision you're making, that you can reflect on that with your partner say, I'm finding this particularly triggering, for example, I just want you to be aware of that. I want to make sure there's no bias in the decision making.
I would say that I feel very confident in our abilities to make decisions. I think as a team, we recognize how hugely important they are. and how important it is for us, for example, to have our own kind of continuing professional development to make sure that we keep our decision making to the highest standard that's absolutely possible.
Kate
And I suppose an informed decision is a good decision, isn't it? In A nutshell, that's what you're saying.
Mike
It really is. And actually, I think it's really important to try and take the emotion out of the decision making. We have a very defined process that helps us step through the decisions we need to make. We've got very clear guidance, which is there publicly for everybody to access. And actually, if you allow the evidence to lead you to make the decision, then you will feel confident that what you've made is fair and proportionate.
Kate
And it's fair to say, isn't it, to have you, that it is very much an evidence-led process?
Elaine
Yeah. I mean, I would agree with Mike. I think the structure, the framework that we have, whilst it's complex and they're very serious decisions. I think if you have gone through an extremely robust and detailed process in order to reach your decision, if you're not happy with that decision, then that means it's not the right decision. And like we've said already, if we feel that we can't get to a mutual decision, we have got the option to recuse. So I think once you've got the decision, you have to be confident that it's the right one and that it's gone through an extremely robust process to get to that stage and we have reflective space where we all talk about cases, we talk about themes. And like we've said already, we've got the Rule 12G process.
We've equally got an internal quality assurance process, which is the decision making review group. They equally will review our decisions. They will give us feedback as to whether they think that the decisions make sense, if they were fair, obviously after the process, because they're not influencing our integrity and our independence. But I think all these mechanisms just mean that we are continually learning as a team.
Kate
And just to say and add on to the end of that there, I am one of the registered social workers in Social Work England that's rota-ed into the decision review group that looks at decisions that we've taken that have been concluded to ensure that we're adhering to our own rules and processes fairly as well.
That's been really helpful. I wonder whether the two of you would mind just maybe imparting what do you think you want listeners to take away from today, from the discussion we've had about the work that you do and its importance? Mike, do you want to jump in?
Mike
For me, it would be, I would really encourage social workers, if they are made subject to fitness to practice proceedings, to engage with the regulator. I really can't say enough how helpful it is when we've had engagement and how that opens up the opportunity for us to resolve the case in what I think is the best way for all parties. Nobody's looking to trip anybody up. There's no kind of trick questions. We just want real, honest, reflection as to what they think has happened and why, and to help us understand any context around what's been happening, because that will be taken into account when we make our decisions. And I think it's recognising that these can be really stressful processes for people, but that the accepted disposal process is designed to help try and reduce that stress that I think inevitably it does have on people.
Elaine
Obviously, you're going to be worried about things if you've had a concern raised about you. Tell us the context, tell us your story, tell us what you've learned from what went wrong. Because without that, we only have one side of the story and that's difficult then for us weighing up what outcome we need to reach. So if we have both, it means that we have got a much more robust and balanced decision and one that hopefully the social worker can agree to. So yeah, can't stress enough that the importance of telling us what's happened and what you've done since that time.
Mike
Can I just add one more thing, if that's okay. One thing I would like to really stress, certainly as a layperson, is how much I recognise the hard work that social workers are doing every day and that actually we absolutely recognise the strains that the sector is under. And I would just want to reassure any listeners that as case examiners, we are working to try and sort of gather any information, any data to be able to provide insights into factors. factors that may be contributing towards fitness to practice matters coming to light to try and help the regulator kind of shape change more broadly in the sector, which I think we absolutely recognise it may be needed.
Elaine
And I think as well, Kate, just to add that, to remember that, the professional case examiners are all still practicing, we are all still out in practice of various shades, but we have still got that insight into the atmosphere, the environment that social workers are working in and that they're pressured. And again, that reassurance that whilst it can't completely dismiss some of the things that we see or undermine them, we do take context into consideration as well. And I think when we're talking about, you know, influencing, we're not an influencer embody, but equally we can collate themes, we can obviously respond to elements of campaigns that maybe BASWA are running. So it is important, the work that we do, and it does influence.
Kate
That's really helpful and very reassuring that you've both got the same message, albeit slightly differently worded. I just want to thank both of you. But before I do that final wrap up, just for the listeners, I just want to remind you that you can jump onto our website and you can watch a video about this process explaining how it all works. And you can read guidance about every step of the fitness to practice process at Social Work England. Lots and lots of publications there.
And also, if you're interested in the regulatory fitness to practice aspect of social work, you're very, you're welcome to jump on to a free monthly online workshop. Every month we deliver those workshops for the sector or for anybody that wants to learn more about fitness to practice here at Social Work England. So do jump on to one of those.
And I think that brings us to the point where I just want to say a big thank you really to our guests today. So I want to say thank you to Mike and to Elaine for joining us and spending that time explaining what they do in that really important part of fitness to practice here at the regulator.
And I think today also puts the humane main sort of face of fitness to practice regulation into context as well. There are human beings at Social Work England doing this difficult work and taking into account the difficult context that social workers are practicing in. So thank you both for joining me today. Really appreciate your time.
Elaine
Thanks very much, Kate. Thanks for having us.
Mike
Yeah, thank you.
Kate
Thanks very much for joining us and we hope that you will be able to join us again soon, next time. Many thanks.