Why Section 42 matters
A practical guide to Section 42 for safeguarding partners, providers and system leaders. Learn the governance, evidence and delivery steps that improve outcomes and reduce risk. Effective safeguarding depends on professional curiosity, robust escalation, timely information sharing and governance that turns learning into safer practice.
Understanding Best Practices for Section 42 in 2026
Professional curiosity is a practice behaviour that safeguarding reviews consistently identify as a critical gap. It means approaching cases with an open, questioning mind — looking beyond the surface presentation, asking 'what if' questions, and being willing to challenge information provided by service users, families and other professionals.
The absence of professional curiosity is a recurring theme in Serious Case Reviews, Safeguarding Adults Reviews and Domestic Homicide Reviews. Common patterns include: accepting explanations at face value without verification, failing to consider the possibility of coercive control, not following up on missed appointments or concerning patterns, and deferring to other agencies' assessments without applying independent professional judgement.
Strengthening professional curiosity requires more than training. It requires a culture where practitioners feel safe to voice concerns, have protected time for reflection and supervision, are supported by managers who model curious practice, and work within systems that enable information sharing across agency boundaries.
The current landscape
Effective safeguarding governance requires more than compliance metrics. Boards and partnerships need to see qualitative evidence of practice improvement: supervision records that show critical reflection, audit findings that test whether policies are followed in practice, and case examples that demonstrate the impact of multi-agency working.
Safeguarding practice has evolved significantly in recent years, with a growing emphasis on contextual safeguarding, professional curiosity and trauma-informed approaches. Practitioners are expected to look beyond the presenting issue, consider the wider context of a person's life, and apply professional curiosity when something doesn't feel right — even when the individual concerned does not disclose abuse.
What organisations need to know
This article focuses on Best Practices for Section 42 in 2026 and the wider priorities around Section 42, Safeguarding, 2026, healthcare consultancy, UK. The strongest organisations do not treat this as a stand-alone exercise — they connect governance, workforce, communication and evidence so leaders can make decisions quickly and confidently.
Safeguarding partners, providers and system leaders should consider these questions before proceeding:
- How do you ensure information sharing happens effectively between agencies?
- What does your safeguarding supervision model look like in practice?
- How do you measure the quality of your safeguarding practice, not just the volume?
Practical checklist
Getting Section 42 right requires structured preparation and disciplined follow-through:
- Clarify statutory duties, thresholds, decision-making routes and escalation responsibilities
- Bring agencies together around a shared chronology, agreed risks and clear ownership of actions
- Use supervision, learning events and governance reporting to embed improvement across teams
- Translate Section 42 into named actions, owners and realistic deadlines
- Keep evidence, decisions and outcomes in one place so future assurance, inspection or procurement activity is easier to manage
Evidence you should have ready
Organisations with strong evidence bases consistently perform better in safeguarding activities. Key evidence includes:
- Audit findings showing compliance with safeguarding policies and procedures
- Training attendance and competency assessment records for safeguarding staff
- Case examples demonstrating effective escalation and multi-agency coordination
Governance considerations
Strong governance underpins successful delivery. For Section 42, this means:
- Multi-agency review processes with tracked actions and evidence of impact
- A named safeguarding lead with sufficient seniority and dedicated time for the role
Common mistakes to avoid
Based on our experience working with safeguarding partners, providers and system leaders, these are the most frequent errors:
- Allowing threshold disputes to delay action on clear risk
- Focusing on process completion without testing whether practice changed
- Producing action plans after reviews without tracking implementation or measuring impact
Avoiding these pitfalls requires leadership commitment, clear accountability and a willingness to seek independent review when internal perspectives may be limited.
How CPGB Ltd can help
We support safeguarding partners, providers and system leaders with safeguarding reviews, practitioner support, governance improvement and multi-agency facilitation. Our team combines frontline health and social care experience with practical consultancy so recommendations are proportionate, evidence-led and built for real delivery.
With over 100 years of combined NHS experience and a track record that includes contracts worth over £200 million, investigations across 50+ NHS trusts and 40+ CQC improvements achieved, we bring both credibility and practical expertise to every engagement.
Contact us to discuss Section 42 and the wider priorities around Safeguarding, 2026, healthcare consultancy, UK.