At the time of the child’s death it was difficult to draw a timeline of the child’s medical history partly because a number of different IT systems were involved and Elsie was known by four different combinations of the birth and adopted name.
“No one agency or worker held all the relevant information on this child,” the review said./facepalm
In December 2015 Elsie sustained a bruise to her forehead. Scully-Hicks claimed she had fallen as she pulled herself up on a toy kitchen. An adoption review took place at the time and Elsie was seen by her social worker, an adoption social worker and an independent reviewing officer. But the presence of the bruise was not recorded.
Five days later a health professional also saw the bruise but did not share this.
The report said: “The observations and recording of the large bruise to the child’s forehead both by children’s services and health was absent. This resulted in the large bruise becoming ‘invisible’ to professionals and did not form part of building an overall picture of what was happening to the child.”Can't chalk that one up to 'It was the computers, boss!', can you?
Lance Carver, director of social services at the Vale of Glamorgan council, accepted the findings of the report and apologised for errors in Elsie’s case.And the people who made those errors?
Carver said no disciplinary actions had been taken against any members of staff as the report did not “indicate that it would be appropriate”.Do you really need a report to tell you that, then? Are you not capable of judgement, like your woeful staff?