An Analysis of Domestic Homicide Review Recommendations for Adult Safeguarding in England

Chantler, Khatidja ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9129-2560, Baker, Victoria, Gunby, Clare ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8428-6621 and Heyes, Kim ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9029-545X (2024) An Analysis of Domestic Homicide Review Recommendations for Adult Safeguarding in England. Journal of Adult Protection. ISSN 1466-8203 (In Press)

Accepted Version File not available for download. Available under License In Copyright. Download (345kB)

Abstract

Purpose: This paper analyses recommendations made in domestic homicide reviews (DHRs) in England relating to adult safeguarding - largely focussing on those aged 66+ - to identify key areas for learning and how equality, diversity, and inclusion issues (EDI) are considered in DHRs. Design/methodology/approach: A mixed methods approach was utilised to analyse 24 DHRs spanning 2015-2018. A qualitative template was created to extract information, followed by a critical thematic analysis. A quantitative matrix was then developed, enabling a descriptive quantitative analysis, identifying the most prevalent types of recommendations. An additional descriptive quantitative analysis of the 24 DHRs was undertaken for context. Findings: Intimate partner homicide (IPH) comprised half the homicides (12); adult family homicide (AFH) comprised 11; and one homicide was an amicicide. DHRs recommended improvements in: information management/multi-agency working (83%); targeted domestic abuse training (67%); developing/abiding by policies (67%); enhancing professional practice (54%); improved domestic abuse risk and carers assessments (50%). EDI was seldom considered. Originality: New analysis is provided on the different types and contexts of domestic homicides involving older adults, the need for strengthened guidance regarding DA and adult safeguarding, tailored DA training and challenging ‘blind spots’ relating to ageist assumptions, the invisibility of familial abuse, a lack of service oversight where care is self-funded and limited consideration of EDI.