Barring ‘inappropriate people’? The operation of a barring list of social care workers
An analysis of the first referrals to the Protection of Vulnerable Adults list
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12287992 |
|---|---|
| Authors | M Stevens (0000-0002-2023-8564, King's College London, corresponding author), Jill Manthorpe (0000-0001-9006-1410, King's College London) |
| Year | 2007 |
| Volume | 15 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 285-294 |
| Publication date | 2007-01-08 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Health & Social Care in the Community (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0966-0410 • E-ISSN: 1365-2524 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2006.00686.x |
| PMID | 17578389 |
| OpenAlex | W1908652331 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 8 |
| References cited | 20 |
Since July 2004, employers of social care staff working with vulnerable adults in England and Wales have been required to refer workers dismissed for misconduct that harmed vulnerable adults or placed them at risk of harm, to the Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) list. Employers are also required to check the list before employing people to work with vulnerable adults. The Department of Health commissioned the authors to analyse the first 100 referrals to the POVA list. Key findings include the over-representation of males and care home staff in the sample of referrals, compared with national figures on care figures and the tendency for male staff to be involved in more physical types of misconduct. These findings are discussed in the light of the literature on workforce regulation and suggestions are made for the implementation of the Bichard Inquiry recommendations. While it is argued that the list is a positive development, it is also stressed that more general measures to improve the quality of services may be at least as important a means of protecting vulnerable adults. Furthermore, the article argues for public debate on the proper balance between the rights of staff and the protection of vulnerable people
Family medicine · Harm · Misconduct · Political science · Psychiatry · Vulnerable adult · Workforce · Elder Abuse and Neglect · Employment and Welfare Studies · Healthcare innovation and challenges · Law · Medicine · Nursing · Psychology · Social Psychology · Social Work
Managers' and Staff Experiences of Adult Protection Allegations in Mental Health and Learning Disability Residential Services
Accusations of misconduct among staff working with vulnerable adults in England and Wales
Weighing the evidence
Banned from working in social care
Quality of private personal care for elderly people in Italy living at home with disabilities
Defining elder mistreatment
Safeguarding and System Change
Re-Thinking Harm and Abuse
Human error
Social services' progress in implementing No Secrets ‐ an analysis of codes of practice
Decision and debate
Re-examining the social construction of ‘elder abuse and neglect’
British government policy and the concentration of ownership in long-term care provision
Closing the Circle
Prior Criminality and Employment of Social Workers with Substantial Access to Children
Towards an explanation of the corruption of care
The Motivations of Domiciliary Care Providers in England
Preventing the Abuse of Vulnerable Adults
| Unique citing works | 8 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,44 |
| Citation span | 2008 - 2011 (4) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 8 |