Peter - Safeguarding Adult Review

Somerset Safeguarding Adults Board logo

When we talk about safeguarding, it’s easy to think in terms of procedures, policies, and paperwork. But behind every case is a person—someone living with daily struggles, choices, and vulnerabilities that don’t always fit neatly into a system. The Somerset Safeguarding Adults Review into the life and death of “Peter,” published in September 2024, is a sobering reminder of this. Despite a Court of Protection order, multiple professionals involved, and repeated attempts to engage him, Peter’s story shows how complex needs, fluctuating mental capacity, and resistance to support can still end in tragedy.

Key Themes

·        Self-Neglect and Substance Use: Peter was known for neglecting his health and wellbeing, exacerbated by alcohol and drug use, yet agencies continued to engage with him, attempting support, though without success in preventing decline.

·        Fluctuating Mental Capacity: His cognitive ability was inconsistent—some decisions could be understood and made, others not—making it particularly challenging for professionals to assess when intervention was appropriate.

·        Legal Safeguards Were Not Enough: Despite having a Court of Protection order, meant to safeguard his welfare and finances, the review highlights that legal mechanisms alone did not guarantee coordinated or effective care.

Why This Matters

·        Real-world complexity: Peter’s case illustrates that safeguarding isn’t a one-size-fits-all process. When autonomy, capacity, and risk mix in unpredictable ways, professionals must be adaptable and responsive.

·        Beyond legal formalities: It’s not enough to rely on court orders or documentation. Agencies must also build relationships, understand fluctuating needs, and work proactively—not just reactively.

·        Navigating refusal of support: Peter’s refusal of support was a challenge. The SAR points to how tough it can be to respect someone’s autonomy, especially when their capacity is not consistent. This is where safeguarding systems need to find balance and deepen trust.

Peter’s case highlights a truth that professionals across health and social care know all too well: safeguarding is rarely straightforward. It requires persistence, creativity, and a willingness to see beyond the forms to the human being at the centre. Legal safeguards and policies are important, but without flexible, joined-up, relationship-based practice, they are not enough. If we are to truly learn from Peter’s story, it’s this—that safeguarding must always balance respect for autonomy with a relentless commitment to protect wellbeing, even when the path forward feels uncertain.