1. AUDITOR’S DETAILS
|
Name:
|
|
Agency:
|
|
Date:
|
|
2. REFERRAL
|
How timely was the referral?
|
Very timely
|
|
4
|
Should have been more than a week earlier
|
|
3
|
Should have been more than a month earlier
|
|
2
|
Should have been more than three months earlier
|
|
1
|
Were all relevant sections completed?
|
Yes
|
|
3
|
No
|
|
1
|
3. MAPPA MEETING
|
How timely was the initial MAPPA meeting after the referral?
|
Very timely
|
|
4
|
Should have been more than a week earlier
|
|
3
|
Should have been more than a month earlier
|
|
2
|
Should have been more than three months earlier
|
|
1
|
4. AGENCY ATTENDANCE
|
Did all the relevant agencies attend?
|
Yes, all
|
|
3
|
No, one did not
|
|
2
|
No, two or more did not
|
|
1
|
Did agencies who did not attend, and who should have provided a report, do so?
|
Yes, all
|
|
4
|
Yes, most
|
|
3
|
No, mostly not
|
|
2
|
No, none
|
|
1
|
5. MINUTES
|
Were the minutes of the MAPPA meeting clear and concise?
|
Yes, completely
|
|
4
|
Yes, mostly
|
|
3
|
No, mostly not
|
|
2
|
No, not at all
|
|
1
|
Was the MAPPA Category clearly identified?
|
Yes
|
|
3
|
No
|
|
1
|
Was the MAPPA management level recorded?
|
Yes
|
|
3
|
No
|
|
1
|
Did the lead agency complete an initial risk management plan?
|
Yes
|
|
3
|
No
|
|
1
|
6. CONDUCT OF THE MEETING
|
Do the minutes show that the agenda was followed?
|
Yes
|
|
3
|
No
|
|
1
|
Do the minutes show that information was exchanged?
|
Yes
|
|
3
|
No
|
|
1
|
Do the minutes show that information was considered?
|
Yes, completely
|
|
4
|
Yes, mostly
|
|
3
|
No, mostly not
|
|
2
|
No, not at all
|
|
1
|
Do the minutes show that diversity issues were considered?
|
Yes
|
|
3
|
No
|
|
1
|
Do the minutes show that risk was properly addressed?
|
Yes, completely
|
|
4
|
Yes, mostly
|
|
3
|
No, mostly not
|
|
2
|
No, not at all
|
|
1
|
Do the minutes show that disclosure was considered?
|
Yes
|
|
3
|
No
|
|
1
|
|
The next three questions seek information only and are not scored.
|
When a decision to disclose was made, do the minutes show to whom?
|
Yes
|
|
|
No
|
|
|
When a decision to disclose was made, do the minutes show by whom?
|
Yes
|
|
|
No
|
|
|
When a decision to disclose was made, do the minutes show when?
|
Yes
|
|
|
No
|
|
|
|
Do the minutes identify potential victims?
|
Yes
|
|
3
|
No
|
|
1
|
Is the risk posed addressed?
|
Yes
|
|
3
|
No
|
|
1
|
7. ACTION PLAN
|
Do the actions in the plan link to the identified risk of serious harm?
|
Yes, completely
|
|
4
|
Yes, well enough
|
|
3
|
No, not sufficiently
|
|
2
|
No, links are poor
|
|
1
|
Are all risks addressed which were identified by MAPPA or obvious to the auditor?
|
Yes, all
|
|
4
|
Yes, but a risk could have been better addressed
|
|
3
|
No, some risks not addressed
|
|
2
|
No, major risk not addressed
|
|
1
|
Please list below any unaddressed risks:
|
|
Do the actions have smart objectives?
|
Yes, for all actions
|
|
4
|
Yes, for most actions
|
|
3
|
No, only for some actions
|
|
2
|
No, not at all
|
|
1
|
Does the plan identify the agencies and individuals to whom actions are allocated?
|
Yes, in all cases
|
|
4
|
Yes, in most cases
|
|
3
|
No, only in some cases
|
|
2
|
No, not at all
|
|
1
|
Is there a clear timetable for the actions?
|
Yes, in all cases
|
|
4
|
Yes, in most cases
|
|
3
|
No, only in some cases
|
|
2
|
No, not at all
|
|
1
|
8. LEVEL OF MAPPA MANAGEMENT
|
Was a change of management level recorded?
|
Yes
|
|
3
|
No
|
|
1
|
Was the decision appropriate?
|
Yes
|
|
3
|
No
|
|
1
|
If not, please explain why not below:
|
|
9. MANAGEMENT OF THE CASE
|
Overall, how well has this MAPPA case been managed?
|
Very well
|
|
4
|
Well enough
|
|
3
|
Not well enough
|
|
2
|
Poorly
|
|
1
|
Please give reasons below:
|
|
Are all the noted decisions and actions defensible?
|
Yes
|
|
3
|
No
|
|
1
|
TOTAL
|
|
|
SCORING MATRIX
|
Total score
|
73 – 90
|
case managed well
|
Total score
|
57 – 72
|
case managed well on the whole
|
Total score
|
41 – 56
|
identifiable concerns about how the case was managed
|
Total score
|
26 – 40
|
case managed poorly
|
Yüklə 2.11 Mb.