Edition 145 – June 2022

My top 3 suggestions for improving your reviews can be referenced within the SILP formula.


The best part is that with each of this, you never get it done. There’s no end destination. It’s a journey of improving each of these as you undertake each review.

ENGAGEMENT

Your review should hear directly from those who were involved in the case wherever possible, as well as those ‘one step removed’ from the action who can provide critical analysis. It also means spending time with family members & significant others, creating the best conditions for all to feel open to learning & sharing openly.*

PROPORTIONALITY

This is about creating greater efficiency of resource, usually in the form of reducing written outputs. Increasing impact by reducing pages. This has been confused with  matching a model of reviewing cases with the complexity of the case. Reducing pages in written outputs does not change how robust the analysis is. It may mean there is less ‘set up wording’ or that an IMR contains less standard information. This approach suits all types of case regardless of complexity, number of agencies or media interest.

STRENGTHS

The review prioritises learning from strong practice. We are leaving behind years of deficit focus in reviews in favour of understanding how to create the conditions to enable practitioners to deliver the best quality service they can. The review which notes good practice has taken step 1 on the journey. When we use this practice to learn we take it further.

Do you think we should adopt a single form of review in England? Would this commonality of approach take us one step closer to achieving these objectives?