Lex Sarah i individ- och familjeomsorgen
– utredningar av missförhållanden och dess konsekvenser
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.64098/SVT.2025.32.1.61067Keywords:
Individ och familjeomsorg, Missförhållanden, Lex SarahAbstract
Reporting of mistreatments (colloquially lex Sarah) is regulated in the Social Services Act and mandatory for all staff working in social services and social care. Since 2011 the provision also applies to individual and family care, and research is still lacking. The reports are investigated by Designated Officials (investigators) employed within the municipality. This study examined how the reported incidents of mistreatment concerning children in individual and family care were assessed, focusing on how the consequences for children were described. 57 reports with investigations from one region were first analyzed using content analysis, thereafter Carol Bacchi’s policy analytical framework was used to discern different problem representations of mistreatments in the investigations. The results showed that the consequences for the children were handled in three ways: they were investigated, the consequences described by reporting staff were overlooked in the investigation, and consequences were not investigated. In the analysis, different understandings of mistreatments emerged. Mistreatments were primarily understood as systematic deficiencies where consequences for the children were made invisible but also as the damage or harm the child suffered. Assessments of mistreatments, as well as its degree of seriousness, varied considerably between investigations, which indicated that serious reports to IVO rested on different interpretations of what was considered serious. The results suggest that it is unclear in what way lex Sarah contributes to quality development and learning from mistakes in individual and family care.
References
Bacchi, C.L. (2009). Analysing policy: what’s the problem represented to be? Pearson.
Bacchi, C.L. & Goodwin, S. (2016). Poststructural policy analysis: a guide to practice. Palgrave Pivot. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52546-8
Berg, K. & Kjellberg, I. (2022). Designated officials’ approaches to judging serious incidents: an analysis of incident reports in care for older people, disability services and family services in Sweden. European Journal of Social Work, 26(5), s. 922–934. doi:org/10.1080/13691457.2022.2155801 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2022.2155801
Benbenishty, R., Davidson-Arad, B., López, M., Devaney, J., Spratt, T., Koopmans, C., Knorth, E.,
Witteman, C., Del Valle, J. & Hayes, D. (2015). Decision making in child protection: an international comparative study on maltreatment substantiation, risk assessment and interventions recommendations, and the role of professionals’ child welfare attitudes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 49, s. 63–75. doi:org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.03.015doi:org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.03.015 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.03.015
Björne, P., Deveau, R. & Nylander, L. (2021). Passing laws is not enough to change staff practice: The case of legally mandated “incident” reporting in Sweden. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 46(2), s. 186–196. doi:org/10.3109/13668250.2021.1873751 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/13668250.2021.1873751
Dickens, J., Cook, L., Cossar, J., Okpokiri, C., Taylor, J & Garstang, J. (2023). Re-envisaging professional curiosity and challenge: Messages for child protection practice from reviews of serious cases in England. Children and Youth Services Review, (152)107081, s. 1–9. doi:org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107081 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.107081
Drisko, J., & Maschi, T. (2015). Content analysis. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190215491.001.0001
Ebsen, F., Leth Svendsen, I., Pape Thomsen, L. & Jørgensen, S. (2023). Decisions in Child Protection—Heuristics, Law and Organisation. The British Journal of Social Work, 53(5), s. 2940–2957. doi:org/10.1039/bjsw/bcad065 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcad065
Forkby, T., Höjer, S., & Liljegren, A. (2016). Making sense of common sense: examining the decision-making of politically appointed representatives in Swedish child protection. Child & Family Social Work, 21(1), s. 14–25. doi:org/10.1111/cfs.12100 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12100
Fransson, S. (2013). Yttrandefrihet och whistleblowing. Om gränserna för anställdas kritikrätt. Premiss förlag.
Heimer, M., Näsman, E. & Palme, J. (2018). Vulnerable children’s rights to participation, protection, and provision: The process of defining the problem in Swedish child and family welfare. Child & Family Social Work, 23(2), s. 316–323. doi:org/10.1111/cfs.12424 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12424
Keddell, E., & Hyslop, I. (2020). Networked decisions: Decision-making thresholds in child protection. The British Journal of Social Work, 50(7), s. 1961–1980. doi:org/10.1093/bjsw/bcz131 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcz131
Kjellberg, I., Berg, K. & Österberg. T. (2023). Exploring mandatory reporting in social care and social services in Sweden. International Journal of Social Welfare, 33(1), s. 29–41. doi:org/10.1111/ijsw.12588 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsw.12588
Kjellberg, I. (2012). Klagomålshantering och lex Sarah och lex Sarah-rapportering i äldreomsorgen. En institutionell etnografisk studie. Diss. Göteborgs universitet. Tillgänglig på: http://hdl.handle.net/2077/30633
Lundström, T., Pålsson, D., Sallnäs, M. & Shanks, E. (2021). A Crisis in Swedish Child Welfare? On Risk, Control and Trust, Social Work & Society, 19(1), s. 1–15.
Mattsson, T. (2017). Våld i barnavårdsutredningar: om socialtjänstens ansvar och viljan att veta. Gleerups.
Platt, D. & Turney, D. (2014). Making threshold decisions in child protection: A conceptual analysis. The British Journal of Social Work, 44(6), s. 1472–1490. doi:org/10.1093/bjsw/bct007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bct007
Power, M. (1999). The Audit Society. Rituals of Verification. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198296034.001.0001
Preston-Shoot, M. (2018). What is Really Wrong with Serious Case Reviews?, Child Abuse Review, 27(1), s. 11–23. doi:org/10.1002/car.2487 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2487
Proposition 2009/10:131 Lex Sarah och socialtjänsten – förslag om vissa förändringar.
Rees, A.M., Fatemi-Dehaghani, R., Slater, T., Swann, R. & Robinson, A.L. (2021). Findings from a Thematic Multidisciplinary Analysis of Child Practice Reviews in Wales. Child Abuse Review 30(2), s. 141–154. doi:org/10.1002/car.2679 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2679
Riksrevisionen (2023). Lex Maria och lex Sarah – statens arbete mot vårdskador och missförhållanden inom vård och omsorg av äldre (RiR 2023:4). Tillgänglig på: https://www.riksrevisionen.se/rapporter/granskningsrapporter/2023/lex-maria-och-lex-sarah---statens-arbete-mot-vardskador-och-missforhallanden-inom-vard-och-omsorg-av-aldre.html
SFS (1993:387). Lag om stöd och service till vissa funktionshindrade
SFS (2025:400). Socialtjänstlag.
Socialstyrelsen (2014). Lex Sarah. Handbok för tillämpningen av bestämmelserna om lex Sarah. Socialstyrelsen.
SOSFS 2011:5 Socialstyrelsens föreskrifter och allmänna råd om lex Sarah.
Taylor, B. (2017). Heuristics in professional judgement: A psycho-social rationality model. The British Journal of Social Work, 47(4), s.1043–1060. doi:org/10.1093/bjsw/bcw084 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcw084
Östberg, F. (2010). Bedömningar och beslut: från anmälan till insats i den sociala barnavården. Diss. Institutionen för socialt arbete, Stockholms universitet.
