Safeguarding adults reviews: Prompting practice and policy

Jill Manthorpe*, Stephen Martineau

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


As a whole there was remarkably little controversy in England over the Care Act 2014, once debates over funding caps had been kicked into the long grass. After all, who could oppose the idea of better information, clearer entitlements, and more support for carers? Among the non-contentious areas were specific proposals for Serious Case Reviews (SCRs) to become Safeguarding Adults Reviews (SARs). In light of the many concerns in children’s services about the dominance of SCRs in policy and practice debates this lack of interest and discussion may seem surprising. In this paper we explore why such reviews concerning adults are largely seen as non-contentious and frame our analysis around four different ‘prompts’; those from Parliament, from earlier SCRs, from practice analysis and from practice development. We draw on our own wider research programme on Adult SCRs and subsequently SARs. This programme of research has explored different facets of the review process and undertaken different thematic analyses by location or user group.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)22-31
Number of pages10
JournalSocial Work and Social Sciences Review
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2015


Dive into the research topics of 'Safeguarding adults reviews: Prompting practice and policy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this