Restorative Learning Audits - Front Door

Consider referrals received within the last 12 months. If the intervention exceeds a 12-month period, then referrals outside of this time frame should be considered.

Please explain the rationale for the judgement

• The reason for the referral/s is timely, clear and linked to the identified concerns. 
• Concerns have been discussed with the parents and consent has been sought
• The referrer (if professional) has been advised of what avenues of support have been attempted with the family prior to making a referral
• Child and families' views have been captured
• The referrer is clear about the desired outcomes
• Referral is processed within required timescales
• Partner agency information has been returned in a timely manner and is relevant
• Consent has been sought to contact partner agencies outside of MASH.  Consider the quality and timelines of the information provided by them, including professionals already supporting at Early Help level.

Please explain the rationale for the judgement

• Overall consideration to be given to the quality of the practitioner and managers assessment of the referral.  
• The risk has been identified and there is clear analysis and recommendation 
• The history of the involvement with the family has been considered within the current contact and referral
• Consideration has been given to other siblings in the home or others outside of the home if impacted upon.
• Agency checks within MASH are proportionate to the concerns raised and relevant to decision making
• Support needs have been identified and any relevant referrals made
• The outcome of the referral has been clearly communicated to the family and referring professional
• The referral sets out the reason for the referral and required outcomes
• The outcome is proportionate to the concerns raised and is timely

Please explain the rationale for the judgement

• The previous decision was appropriate and in line with the presenting evidence at the time
• The referrer followed the advice previously given i.e to initiate an EH pathway
• The referrer (if the same as previous referral) used the escalation policy when the earlier decision was made
• The re-referral was considered to explore if assessment/ intervention was appropriate or if there were gaps in understanding of need
• The history is considered, and action is taken to ensure the correct level of intervention is provided