Procedure for Safeguarding Adult Reviews

Disagreement during a SAR, whether about scope, methodology, findings, or recommendation should be approached constructively and with transparency. Differing professional and family perspectives are not uncommon and often reflect the complexity of safeguarding work. When dissent arises, it should be acknowledged and managed through open dialogue and facilitated discussion within the SAR Subgroup. The Chair for the SAR Subgroup plays a pivotal role in ensuring all voices are heard and that differing views are explored respectfully.

If consensus cannot be reached, the SAR Delivery panel should consider practical steps such as revisiting the terms of reference, seeking additional evidence, or involving an independent facilitator. Where disagreement persists, it is acceptable to document dissenting views within the SAR report to maintain transparency and integrity. In line with governance protocols, unresolved matters should be escalated to the Independent Chair of the SAB, who holds final decision-making authority.

Potential resolutions may include seeking legal advice, involving an independent mediator, or clarifying evidence. The overarching aim must always be to maintain a focus on learning,  improvement, and respectful collaboration. There may also be occasions when disagreement occurs between the Independent Reviewer and SAR Delivery panel members, including statutory partners or key  stakeholders. These situations should be handled with professionalism, openness, and a commitment to safeguarding learning.

Crucially, the independence of the review must be protected, and any resolution should prioritise the integrity of findings and the value of learning over organisational defensiveness or reputational concerns. The CYSAB Independent Chair must ensure that the review remains independent, evidence-informed, and aligned with the statutory purpose of promoting learning and improving safeguarding practice. The CYSAB Independent Chair should consider all perspectives, seek further advice where needed, and make a determination that upholds transparency, integrity, and the best interests of adults at risk.

The CYSAB retains ultimate responsibility for the SAR process. Where a dispute arises, it shall be dealt with as follows:

• those responsible for the relevant part of the SAR process shall attempt to resolve the dispute, for example, the SAR Subgroup and/or the SAR Delivery Panel and the CYSAB Executive Group during the review. Any concern that cannot be resolved will be escalated to the CYSAB Independent Chair for a final decision
• for disputes relating to the report content, the objecting party will provide written representation setting out their concerns to the SAR Subgroup  within five working days of being advised that the final draft report will not be amended
• where the CYSAB Independent Chair is unable to resolve the dispute, they may recommend that a reference to the dispute, and why it was not possible to resolve, should be included as an addendum to the report. This will be shared with the SAB
• throughout the SAR process the following areas will be encouraged at all stages
• open dialogue among SAR participants, including practitioners, families, and reviewers will be encouraged
• setting expectations that challenge is welcomed as part of learning, not blame
• use of facilitated reflective sessions to surface differing views safely
• use of mediation or peer review if consensus cannot be reached on key findings