111Rapid Realist Review of Adult Safeguarding Legislation and Policy Internationally - Lessons for Ireland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Adult safeguarding is increasingly attracting policy and practice interest internationally. The investigation of the alleged abuse of vulnerable adults, including older people, has become an important feature of professional practice in Ireland. This implies important organisational challenges in ensuring that adult safeguarding responsibilities are delivered in ways that ensure positive outcomes for all stakeholders. In 2017, the Health Service Executive (HSE) commissioned a Rapid Realist Literature Review (RRR) in order to inform and underpin their review of Safeguarding Vulnerable Persons at Risk of Abuse - National Policy and Procedures (2014) [1]. Methods: A RRR approach was employed to review the national and international literature relating to Adult Safeguarding Legislation, Policy and Practice in five jurisdictions; England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Australia and Canada. This desk-based evaluation set out to address the question ‘what works, for whom and in what circumstances?’ [2] Results: In all jurisdictions reviewed, key to striking a balance between protection and rights is the participation of the ‘adult at risk’ in the safeguarding process including access to independent advocacy to help promote autonomy. Central to all safeguarding policies is the need to make inter-agency working obligatory and to ensure policies and processes are in place to do so. Sustainable resources at the preventative and protection stage are imperative in addition to adequately resourced adult safeguarding teams. The introduction of legislation can offer jurisdictions the opportunity to consider the introduction of measurable outcomes and if appropriate, reprioritise service provision across the preventative-protection continuum. Conclusion: Adult safeguarding policy and legislation must ensure that interventionist and compulsory measures to protect do not excessively restrict the rights of the individual.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".