Practitioner Disagreement & Escalation

Effective multi-agency safeguarding relies on open communication, respectful professional challenge and a shared commitment to achieving the best outcomes for children and young people. Differences of opinion will sometimes arise about a child's needs, level of risk, appropriate response or the actions required of individual agencies.

The safety and wellbeing of the child or young person must remain the primary consideration. Practitioner disagreement must never delay or prevent action needed to safeguard them.

Practitioners have a responsibility to respectfully challenge decisions or practice where they believe these may not be in the best interests of a child or young person. Wherever possible, differences should be resolved promptly through constructive discussion at the earliest opportunity. Good communication, professional curiosity and a willingness to understand different perspectives will resolve many disagreements without the need for further escalation.

Where concerns cannot be resolved through professional discussion, practitioners should use this procedure to escalate the concern promptly and seek resolution at the appropriate level.

View the Pan Bedfordshire Multi-Agency Disagreement & Escalation Procedure.

What does Effective Challenge Looks Like?

Effective professional challenge is respectful, constructive and focused on achieving the best outcomes for children and young people. It involves practitioners being professionally curious, sharing information openly, asking questions when they are concerned, and confidently expressing a different view when they believe a child's needs, safety or wellbeing may not be fully recognised. Effective challenge is based on evidence, remains child-centred, and seeks to understand the rationale behind decisions rather than assigning blame.

Practitioners should use professional challenge to strengthen decision-making, improve multi-agency working and ensure that no child is left at risk because concerns have not been appropriately explored or escalated. Where disagreements cannot be resolved through discussion, practitioners have a responsibility to escalate concerns in line with this procedure whilst maintaining positive and respectful working relationships. Never allow disagreement to delay safeguarding action.

Key Messages

• Be professionally curious.
• Focus on the child's lived experience.
• Challenge decisions, not people.
• Use evidence and clear rationale.
• Listen to and respect different professional perspectives.
• Escalate concerns when resolution cannot be achieved.
• Maintain respectful working relationships throughout the process.

Professional challenge is not:

• Criticising or blaming colleagues.
• Confrontational or disrespectful communication.
• Defending agency positions without considering new information.
• Allowing professional disagreements to become personal.
• Delaying action when a child may be at risk.

Effective challenge asks:

• "What might we be missing?"
• "How do we know this child is safer?"
• "What does the child's lived experience tell us?"
• "If this situation deteriorated, what would we wish we had done differently?"

Practical Examples

These questions help maintain a culture of professional curiosity, respectful challenge and shared accountability for safeguarding children and young people.

• Threshold decision "I appreciate the rationale for the decision not to progress this referral. However, I remain concerned about the cumulative impact of repeated domestic abuse incidents and the child's school attendance. Could we review whether the threshold for assessment has been fully considered?"
• Information sharing "I understand there are concerns about sharing this information. Can you help me understand what prevents us from sharing it, given the potential safeguarding risks and our shared responsibility to protect the child?"
• Assessment outcome "I have reviewed the assessment and remain concerned that the child's voice and lived experience are not clearly reflected. Could we discuss how their daily experience of risk has informed the conclusions reached?"
• Case closure "Whilst some progress has been made, I am concerned that the underlying issues remain unresolved. What evidence supports the decision to close the case at this point, and how will ongoing risk be monitored?"
• Attendance at meetings "This agency's involvement is important to understanding the child's circumstances. Can we explore how their contribution can be secured before key decisions are made?"
• Escalating concerns "We have discussed this matter and I respect your professional view. However, I remain concerned that the current plan may not adequately safeguard the child. In line with the escalation procedure, I intend to raise this with my manager so that the concerns can be reviewed."
• Professional curiosity "Can you help me understand what has changed since the previous assessment, as the information I hold suggests that some risks may still be present?"

View the Pan Bedfordshire Multi-Agency Disagreement & Escalation Procedure.