Michelle,
Thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response. I had a quick read of some of the supporting documents and web pages. For those interested, the relevant link is found here http://systems.hscic.gov.uk/cpis
I saw a reference to case by case in the CP-IS factsheet.
I appreciate the reference to the Children Act 2004, particularly s17 and Section 10 because they create the gateway. In that sense, I think that Schedule 2 (5) can be met as can Schedule 3 ( 3, 6, or 7).
My concerns would be to understand the necessity and the extent of the sharing once the flag has indicated that the child is looked after or on a care plan. Does that in turn automatically create a right, based on the same path dependency, to see any and all documents relating to the child or simply what is necessary to care for the child or to report concerns back to the relevant parties.
I will also have to explore the retention period for these flags and whether that is associated with a patient's NHS number and whether that remains with them as an NHS patient indefinitely. As NHS data is slowly, but surely, being exploited for the country's economic future, one has to consider whether this can be information that can be mined as required. However, that leads us further away from the issue at hand, which is sharing information as necessary.
I am sure that these and other questions will be answered within the various documents that are sent through.
Thanks again for the detailed and helpful post. It is posts like yours that show the true value of this list.
Best,
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: This list is for those interested in Data Protection issues [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michelle Peel
Sent: 29 November 2013 09:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [data-protection] Child protection: information sharing project
Hi Lawrence,
I have just moved from being IG Officer for Children's Services at a LA, so I am no longer involved in the project, but I thought it might be worth giving my views on this anyway as I have previously worked in this arena.
I believe that the sharing is to be case by case. I can't for the life of me remember where I read this, but that is my understanding. In practice this will mean that the status of the social care case will effectively determine whether or not the information is to be shared as I will explain below. The legislation relevant is the Children Act 2004, particularly s17, which requires the Children's Trust Board to put together children's plans. Section 10 is relevant because this is the duty for the LA and partners to cooperate to improve the wellbeing of the child.
Where a child reaches the Child Protection stage of the social care system, there must be a risk of significant harm to the child, hence the need to protect. Child in Need status is the one below that on the threshold and that is the one where consent for involvement, and further info sharing is required. At CP stage, because it is understood that there is a risk of significant harm, there is a need for all professionals to share the information that is relevant. In practice the parent will be told who the information is to be shared with (unless to do so would present a risk to another adult or child), and the sharing would then take place. *If* consent is sought (and it probably isn't), and is refused by the parent/young person, if they have been placed under a Child Protection Plan it is more than likely that the sharing would be deemed necessary in the child's interest to protect them from harm.
Looked After Children are either escalated from CP status (I include in this those children to whom the risk is so great that they are moved straight into care), or in some rare cases, the parent gives them up to care/adoption. Depending on the legal status of the child, the LA may even have parental responsibility for the child, and therefore the ability to decide.
In summary, I believe that the threshold chosen (CP and LAC cases) have been so chosen because the risk of significant harm to the child has been reached, and therefore information can be shared. In addition, the system is only going to flag the status of the child, which may in practice already be known in any case depending on the health professional involved e.g. health visitors and GPs, Community Nursing Team, Learning Disability Nurses etc. should already have been informed via the case working. Health are a key member of the team around the child. A&E need to know that there is a CP plan, or that the child is LAC because this could have a bearing on identifying potential abuse, or require them to inform the LA that the child/young person has presented for example.
The difference with this system to the now defunct ContactPoint is that ContactPoint was sharing information about all services involved with the child from universal to statutory, and this (plus the requirement for DWP to feed address data) meant that additional legislation was necessary. Because the social care status being recorded is that of the statutory involvement, I believe this gives the gateway necessary under the Children Act 2004.
I was a strong supporter of ContactPoint, and I personally don't feel that this "new" system goes far enough. This is a case of reinventing the wheel but reverting to an earlier more basic model!
Sorry for a slightly lengthy response!
Best wishes,
Michelle
Michelle Peel
Information Manager
Transport for Greater Manchester
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask] All user commands can be found at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
Any queries about sending or receiving messages please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
Full help Desk - please email [log in to unmask] describing your needs
To receive these emails in HTML format send the command:
SET data-protection HTML to [log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
________________________________
Help protect our environment by only printing this email if absolutely necessary. The information it contains and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are only intended for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may be unlawful for you to use, share or copy the information, if you are not authorised to do so. If you receive this email by mistake, please inform the person who sent it at the above address and then delete the email from your system. Durham County Council takes reasonable precautions to ensure that its emails are virus free. However, we do not accept responsibility for any losses incurred as a result of viruses we might transmit and recommend that you should use your own virus checking procedures.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All archives of messages are stored permanently and are
available to the world wide web community at large at
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/data-protection.html
If you wish to leave this list please send the command
leave data-protection to [log in to unmask]
All user commands can be found at http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/help/commandref.htm
Any queries about sending or receiving messages please send to the list owner
[log in to unmask]
Full help Desk - please email [log in to unmask] describing your needs
To receive these emails in HTML format send the command:
SET data-protection HTML to [log in to unmask]
(all commands go to [log in to unmask] not the list please)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
