Dataset Information

Reasonable suspicion in reporting child maltreatment: a survey among German healthcare professionals.

ABSTRACT:

Background

With regular contacts to the general child population, healthcare professionals could play an important role in the detection of child maltreatment. However, a majority of child maltreatment cases go unnoticed by the healthcare system. Child protection legislations usually offer terms like "reasonable suspicion" to corner a threshold that warrants reporting to child protection services (CPS) is defined as. The indistinct legal terminology leads to marked differences in the interpretation of this threshold. Therefore, we aimed to systematically assess the understanding of reasonable suspicion and subsequent handling of cases in the German context.

Methods

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted among 2485 physicians and psychotherapists working with children and adolescents. Field access was gained by German professional associations. Via case vignettes, predictors of thresholds for reporting were assessed.

Results

The probability of a report to CPS increased positively with the degree of suspicion for maltreatment. However, even if participants were certain that child maltreatment occurred, 20% did not chose to report to CPS. Training in child protection lowered the professionals' threshold for reasonable suspicion; experience with child protection cases and good knowledge of the legal framework increased the likelihood to report an alleged situation of child maltreatment to CPS.

Conclusion

Our data show that a significant proportion of health care professionals are uncertain about estimating reasonable suspicion and on how to proceed when there are strong indications for child maltreatment Therefore, data point towards the relevance of training in child protection among healthcare professionals in order to improve detection and adequate handling of cases of child maltreatment.

SUBMITTER: Berthold O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8204433 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:To prevent child maltreatment, the identification of vulnerable children is essential. In Norway, public dental health personnel (PDHP) report suspicion of child maltreatment to child welfare services (CWS) at a relatively high rate. However, their reasons for reporting and the response from CWS have not been investigated. The objectives of this study were to (1) explore the reasons that PDHP send reports of concern, (2) examine how CWS responds to PDHP reports, and (3) assess whether different reasons for concern are associated with a given response from CWS. METHODS:A national cross-sectional study was conducted by an electronic survey distributed to public dental hygienists and dentists in Norway. Descriptive statistics were calculated in terms of mean (SD) distributions and frequency, expressed as % (n). To account for clustering of responses among respondents, binomial generalized estimating equation analysis was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and confidence intervals (CIs) of CWS responses across number of reports with different reasons for concern. RESULTS:Of a total of 1542 questionnaire recipients, 1200 (77.8%) responded to the survey. From 2012 to 2014, 42.5% of the respondents sent 1214 reports to CWS, with a mean number of 2.7 (SD?=?2.0) reports per respondent. The PDHP sent the reports due to suspicion of neglect or physical, sexual and/or psychological abuse. Non-attendance at dental appointments and grave caries were reported most frequently. Among the reports, 24.5% resulted in measures being taken by CWS, 20.7% were dropped, and 29.4% lacked information from CWS on the outcome. Reports due to suspicion of sexual abuse, (OR 1.979, 95% CI (1.047-3.742), P?=?0.036), grave caries (OR 1.628, 95% CI (1.148-2.309), P?=?0.006), and suspicion of neglect (OR 1.649, 95% CI (1.190-2.285), P?=?0.003) had the highest association with the implementation of measures. CONCLUSIONS:PDHP report on several forms of child maltreatment and contributes in detection of victimized children. However, the relatively low number of measures being taken by CWS and the number of reports that lack a response to reporters reveal a need for a closer cooperation between the services, as this would benefit both the children at risk and the services.

Project description:ObjectiveTo systematically search for research about the effectiveness of mandatory reporting of child maltreatment and to synthesise qualitative research that explores mandated reporters' (MRs) experiences with reporting.DesignAs no studies assessing the effectiveness of mandatory reporting were retrieved from our systematic search, we conducted a meta-synthesis of retrieved qualitative research. Searches in Medline (Ovid), Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Sociological Abstracts, Education Resources Information Center, Criminal Justice Abstracts and Cochrane Library yielded over 6000 citations, which were deduplicated and then screened by two independent reviewers. English-language, primary qualitative studies that investigated MRs' experiences with reporting of child maltreatment were included. Critical appraisal involved a modified checklist from the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and qualitative meta-synthesis was used to combine results from the primary studies.SettingAll healthcare and social-service settings implicated by mandatory reporting laws were included. Included studies crossed nine high-income countries (USA, Australia, Sweden, Taiwan, Canada, Norway, Finland, Israel and Cyprus) and three middle-income countries (South Africa, Brazil and El Salvador).ParticipantsThe studies represent the views of 1088 MRs.OutcomesFactors that influence MRs' decision to report and MRs' views towards and experiences with mandatory reporting of child maltreatment.ResultsForty-four articles reporting 42 studies were included. Findings indicate that MRs struggle to identify and respond to less overt forms of child maltreatment. While some articles (14%) described positive experiences MRs had with the reporting process, negative experiences were reported in 73% of articles and included accounts of harm to therapeutic relationships and child death following removal from their family of origin.ConclusionsThe findings of this meta-synthesis suggest that there are many potentially harmful experiences associated with mandatory reporting and that research on the effectiveness of this process is urgently needed.

Project description:BackgroundMedication errors (MEs) are largely under-reported, which undermines quality improvement and medication risk management in healthcare.ObjectivesTo assess attitudes of Ugandan healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards ME reporting, and identify characteristics of HCPs who endorsed integration of ME and adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting, valued patient involvement in ME reporting, disclosed having ever made potentially harmful MEs, or observed possibly harmful MEs committed by other HCPs.MethodsHealthcare professionals self-completed a questionnaire on their attitudes towards the occurrence and reporting of MEs in purposively selected Ugandan health facilities (public/private) including the national referral and six regional referral hospitals representative of all regions.ResultsResponse rate was 67 % (1345/2000). Most HCPs (91 %; 1174/1289) approved a national ME reporting system for Uganda and 58 % (734/1261) endorsed integration of ME and ADR reporting. Two-thirds (65 %; 819/1267) of HCPs valued patient involvement in ME reporting, one-fifth (18 %; 235/1310) disclosed that they had ever made potentially harmful MEs, while two-fifths (41 %; 542/1323) had ever identified possibly harmful MEs committed by other HCPs. Endorsing patient involvement in ME reporting was more likely by HCPs who valued root-cause analysis and reporting of both actual and potential MEs, or who conceded inadequate communication and lack of time. Self-disclosure of having ever committed potentially harmful MEs was more likely with the need for confidentiality, working in stressful conditions, and willingness to report ADRs. Identifying possibly harmful MEs committed by other HCPs was more likely by non-nurses and those who reported blame culture, stressful conditions, ever encountered a fatal ADR, or attachment to hospital-level health facility.ConclusionA non-punitive healthcare environment and patient involvement may promote ME disclosure and reporting in Uganda and possibly other African countries.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Healthcare professional's knowledge and attitudes to adverse drug reaction (ADR) and ADR reporting play vital role to report any cases of ADR. Positive attitudes may favour ADR reporting by healthcare professionals. This study was aimed to investigate the attitudes towards and ways to improve adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting among healthcare professionals working at four Regional Pharmacovigilance Centres (RPCs) of Nepal. METHODS: A cross sectional study was done by survey using a self-administered structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed to 450 healthcare professionals working at four RPCs. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 74.0%. There were 74.8% of healthcare professionals who had seen patient experiencing an ADR; however, only 20.1% had reported. Reporting form not available (48.1%) and other colleagues not reporting ADR cases (46.9%) would significantly discourage the ADR reporting among healthcare professionals working at four RPCs. Healthcare professionals perceived that seriousness of the reaction (75.6%); unusual reaction (64.6%); reaction to new product (71.2%); new reaction to existing product (70.2%); and confidence in diagnosis of ADR (60.8%) were important factors on the decision to report ADR. Awareness among healthcare professionals (85.9%), training (76.0%), collaboration (67.0%), and involve pharmacist for ADR reporting (63.1%) were mostly recognized ways to improve reporting. Regular newsletter on current awareness in drug safety (71.2%), information on new ADR (65.8%), and international drug safety information (64.0%) were the identified feedbacks they would like to receive from the Nepal pharmacovigilance programme. CONCLUSION: Healthcare professionals working at four RPCs of Nepal have positive attitudes towards ADR reporting. Awareness among healthcare professionals, training and collaboration would likely improve reporting provided they would receive appropriate feedback from the national pharamcovigilance programme.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare professionals outside of medicine (HCPs), including nurses, midwives and allied health professionals, are increasingly involved in research for patient benefit. Their challenge is to negotiate inter-professional or professionally isolated contexts. The aims of this study were to evaluate the 'Healthcare Professionals in Research' (HPiR) Facebook group (a self-directed and confidential peer support group for doctoral and postdoctoral HCPs) including engagement, the experiences of doctoral and postdoctoral HPiR members and to identify future career challenges using an on-line survey.MethodsThe HPiR Facebook group was launched in May 2019. Five HCP Community managers (CMs) were trained in on-line platform curation, moderation and screening. An on-line survey was designed to capture data from HPiR members. A purposive sampling approach was applied. Respondents were required to be doctoral and postdoctoral HCPs and a registered member of the HPiR group. Respondents represented a range of healthcare professions, 79 % of whom had over ten years clinical experience. Membership growth and engagement was analysed. Descriptive statistics were used to present numerical data. Qualitative data were analysed thematically.Results96 members were admitted to the group within the first month. All members were actively engaged with group content. 34/96 doctoral and postdoctoral HCPs completed the survey. Most members joined for networking (88 %) and peer support (82 %) purposes. Analysis of text responses showed difficulties in balancing a clinical academic career and highlighted the consequences of undefined clinical academic roles and pathways.ConclusionsDoctoral and postdoctoral HCPs value the opportunities that HPiR provides for peer support and connection with fellow HCPs. HPiR has the potential to strengthen research capacity, support research skill development and drive change within the clinical academic community. Clinical academic roles and pathways need to be standardised. The creation of opportunities beyond doctoral studies is a priority.