About this page. This page summarises a Domestic Homicide Review published in the Home Office DHR Library. The full report is available at the source link below. Victim and perpetrator names are not included in extracted summaries on this page.
Source · Domestic Homicide Review

Islington review

CSP: Islington Published: August 2023 Year of death: 2012 Extracted: 15 recs

Statutory domestic homicide review under section 9 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. Source: Home Office DHR Library.

Original review (PDF) ↗ Source: Home Office DHR Library

Summary AI-generated

Verify against the full report at the source link
The report identifies systemic failures in inter-agency communication and information sharing, leading to missed opportunities to assess the carer's mental health and substance misuse issues, provide adequate carer support, and explore reasons for non-engagement with services. It highlights the need for improved domestic violence screening and risk assessment, particularly concerning carer vulnerability.

Home Office classifications

31 tags

Source-supplied classifications used by the Home Office to catalogue this review.

  • Victim - alcohol misuse
  • Victim - mental ill health
  • Victim - depression
  • Victim - serious or life limiting illness
  • Perpetrator - case heard in court
  • Perpetrator - was a carer
  • Perpetrator - carer for victim
  • Perpetrator - alcohol misuse
  • Perpetrator - substance misuse
  • Perpetrator - physical disability
  • Perpetrator - mental ill health
  • Perpetrator - depression
  • Perpetrator - psychosis
  • Perpetrator - self harm
  • Perpetrator - suicidal thoughts
  • Perpetrator - suicide attempts
  • Perpetrator - serious or life limiting illness
  • Aggravating factors - separation
  • Aggravating factors - coercive or controlling behaviour
  • DHR process - family contributed to dhr
  • DHR process - social services recommendations
  • DHR process - health services recommendations
  • DHR process - community safety partnership recommendations
  • DHR process - technology systems recommendation themes
  • DHR process - identification of risk recommendation themes
  • DHR process - training recommendation themes
  • DHR process - policy recommendation themes
  • DHR process - multi agency working recommendation themes
  • DHR process - record keeping recommendation themes
  • DHR process - awareness raising recommendation themes
  • DHR process - other recommendation themes

Extracted recommendations

15 recommendations pulled from the report · 2 matched to organisations in the index

Recommendation 1

Addressed to Islington CSPU

Islington CSPU will develop minimum standards around DV definition/policies that will be distributed for adoption by all partners locally, so to ensure a consistent approach and understanding of the issue.

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 2

Addressed to Islington Adult Social Care

At a strategic level, Islington Adult Social Care should review how effectively it works with domestic violence agencies and MARAC and the MARAC Steering Group. Joint working may help to raise awareness of the specific risks relating to domestic violence for adults at risk and ensure better adjustment outcomes for their family carers.

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 3

Addressed to All agencies | Islington Safeguarding Adults Board | Safer Islington Partnership

For all agencies who do not conduct periodic reviews of their processes and policies they must conduct a review of all safeguarding adult and domestic violence processes and policies and explicitly consider the overlap of the dynamic of domestic violence in its broadest sense and the response to safeguarding adults at risk. (The review process should be overseen by the Islington Safeguarding Adults Board in addition to the Safer Islington Partnership.) All agencies will be required and expected to implement policies and procedures in this area and report on their progress. These processes and policies to be reviewed annually and reported back to both strategic boards.

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 4

Addressed to Organisations

Organisations to consider implementing separate interview and screening procedures for carers and patients to ensure both parties have the ability to speak freely and openly about their needs and concerns. This is particularly important in case of potential abuse and domestic violence, but a relevant screening tool for all cases.

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 5

Addressed to Adult Social Care

Adult Social Care to adopt an integrated whole systems infrastructure which will better facilitate and support multi-agency working. Adult Social Care to identify a lead organisation with case management responsibility and a lead local authority with co-ordination responsibility. Local authorities have the lead role in coordinating the multi-agency approach to safeguarding adults at risk. This includes the coordination of the application of this policy and procedures, coordination of activity between organisations, review of practice, facilitation of joint training, dissemination of information and monitoring and review of progress within the local authority area. This could be addressed in Islington by the launch of the 2013 Plan for Whole System Integration. The objective of this approach is to optimise multi agency expertise and resource to deliver effective seamless multi agency preventive services, treatment and care closer to home and will include other public services in addition to health and social care. Carers at Risk - Greater multi agency and think family interventions incorporated in a whole systems approach as described above in working with carers to identify risk where the carer has unmet or unrecognised low level needs, are vulnerable themselves and have little personal or private space or life outside the caring environment.

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 6

Addressed to MSW | ELiPSe team

MSW and ELiPSe team to review referral pathways, especially around how information about referrals to family services is communicated to clients and how referral outcomes are fed back to them.

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 7

Addressed to Organisations

Organisations to review/develop their policies on non-engagement and refusal of services, with an emphasis placed on the importance of focussing on the whole family including cared for and carer in terms of refusal or non-engagement. (There may be scope for additional work looking at ways of supporting carers where the cared-for person refuses to accept care from anyone else, as this is a common tension within informal care relationships.)

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 8

Addressed to District Nursing team

District Nursing team to continue to seek consent from service users and/or have discussion with them before referring to social services. This consent needs to be documented clearly in case files as not to delay referral processes. Additionally, as it is standard procedure to share notes with clients and keep them at the client’s property, on a national level, District Nursing should develop a central electronic back-up system (attached to health records) of home notes so professionals can access these records at any time and that in the case of loss or destruction there remains a copy of all patients’ records.

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 9

Addressed to Telecare Service | Adult Social Care

Telecare Service should review their procedures relating to service users who refuse services to ensure this information is captured and systematically fed back to the referrer. To this end, the Telecare Service will work with Adult Social Care to further develop the IAS system to capture and report issues of non-engagement by service users and/or their carers. This will ensure risk assessments are based upon accurate information and processes and procedures are managed in line with the guidance published by the Islington Safeguarding Adults Unit on 'Complex Cases including persons who refuse to engage and persons who self-neglect' (November 2010).

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 10

Addressed to All organisations | Islington Carers Hub | GP

All organisations to explore ways of implementing best practice to identify carers and their support needs and refer them at the earliest stage possible to the Islington Carers Hub for advice, support and opportunities to be with a potentially supportive peer group of other carers. The Islington Carers Hub is open to all carers, even if a formal Needs Assessment has not been completed, and referral should take place at the earliest opportunity. Carers' should be Red coded in the GP clinical computer system thus allowing easy identification of them by a simple search.

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 11

Addressed to Islington Safeguarding Adults Partnership Board

As this case has some similarities with other serious cases involving family carers, the Islington Safeguarding Adults Partnership Board should examine together all such cases in the last 24 months to identify any areas for development or concern.

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 12

Addressed to All practitioners

To deliver training to ensure all practitioners have a good understanding of the dynamics of domestic violence and appropriate responses. This case must be used as part of the development of an enhanced training package for practitioners which addresses safeguarding issues and includes domestic violence and abuse in its broadest sense.

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 13

Addressed to Islington CCG

Islington CCG should develop a more consistent approach to domestic violence that includes training, identification and appropriate responses.

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 14

Addressed to Islington Safeguarding Adults Partnership Board

The Islington Safeguarding Adults Partnership Board to look into the issues of carer support and domestic violence and the overlap with safeguarding adults (perhaps by conducting a review with Domestic Violence agencies to raise awareness among professionals and the public about the risks and vulnerabilities). For example, no widely-used risk evaluation tool exists which reliably predicts which family carers are likely to abuse the person they look after. (The ISAPB could look to develop such a tool to facilitate weighting of various risk factors, decision-making and thresholds for intervention in this area if deemed appropriate.)

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗

Recommendation 15

Addressed to Agencies

Agencies to review the use of, and triggers for, risk assessments. Appropriate training to be commissioned to support staff to use risk assessments as a robust tool to manage risk and inform actions and outcomes, particularly where carers are involved or where domestic violence is suspected.

Verified wording from the published review · Original review (PDF) ↗