What difference does the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) 2007 make to social work service practitioners' safeguarding practice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This article seeks to explore the difference that adult support and protection legislation may have made to work with adults at risk of harm in Scotland. Design/methodology/approach The article is based upon findings of a joint academic and practitioner qualitative research project that interviewed 29 social service practitioners across three local authorities. Findings The legislation was seen as positive, giving greater attention to adults at risk. Views about the actual difference it made to the practitioners' practice varied, and were more likely in new rather than ongoing work. Three differences were noted: duties of investigation, protection orders and improved shared responsibility within the local authority and across other agencies, but to a lesser extent NHS staff. Overall it gave effective responses, more quickly for the adults at risk. Whilst the law brought greater clarity of role, there were tensions for practitioners in balancing an adult's right to autonomy with practitioners' safeguarding responsibilities. Originality/value The paper demonstrates that a dedicated law can improve safeguarding practice by clarifying the role of social work practitioners and the responsibilities of other agencies. The right to request access to records and banning orders were seen as valuable new measures in safeguarding adults at risk. As such the study from the first UK country to use dedicated adult safeguarding law offers a valuable insight for policy makers, professionals and campaign groups from other countries, which might be considering similar action.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".