Information sharing and reporting systems in the UK and Ireland: Professional barriers to reporting child maltreatment concerns

Across the UK recent policy developments have focused on improved information sharing and inter-agency cooperation. Professional non-reporting of child maltreatment concerns has been consistently highlighted as a problem in a range of countries and the research literature indicates that this can happen for a variety of reasons. Characteristics such as the type of abuse and the threshold of evidence available are key factors, as are concerns that reporting will damage the professional-client relationship. Professional discipline can also impact on willingness to report, as can personal beliefs about abuse, attitudes towards child protection services and experiences of court processes. Research examining the role of organisational factors in information sharing and reporting emphasises the importance of training and there are some positive indications that training can increase professional awareness of reporting processes and requirements and help to increase knowledge of child abuse and its symptoms. Nonetheless, this is a complex issue and the need for training to go beyond simple awareness raising is recognised. In order to tackle non-reporting in a meaningful way, childcare professionals need access to on-going multidisciplinary training which is specifically tailored to address the range of different factors which impact on reporting attitudes and behaviours.

EuroClonality/BIOMED-2 guidelines for interpretation and reporting of Ig/TCR clonality testing in suspected lymphoproliferations.

PCR-based immunoglobulin (Ig)/T-cell receptor (TCR) clonality testing in suspected lymphoproliferations has largely been standardized and has consequently become technically feasible in a routine diagnostic setting. Standardization of the pre-analytical and post-analytical phases is now essential to prevent misinterpretation and incorrect conclusions derived from clonality data. As clonality testing is not a quantitative assay, but rather concerns recognition of molecular patterns, guidelines for reliable interpretation and reporting are mandatory. Here, the EuroClonality (BIOMED-2) consortium summarizes important pre- and post-analytical aspects of clonality testing, provides guidelines for interpretation of clonality testing results, and presents a uniform way to report the results of the Ig/TCR assays. Starting from an immunobiological concept, two levels to report Ig/TCR profiles are discerned: the technical description of individual (multiplex) PCR reactions and the overall molecular conclusion for B and T cells. Collectively, the EuroClonality (BIOMED-2) guidelines and consensus reporting system should help to improve the general performance level of clonality assessment and interpretation, which will directly impact on routine clinical management (standardized best-practice) in patients with suspected lymphoproliferations.

REporting and calibration of post-bomb C-14 data

The definitive paper by Stuiver and Polach (1977) established the conventions for reporting of 14C data for chronological and geophysical studies based on the radioactive decay of 14C in the sample since the year of sample death or formation. Several ways of reporting 14C activity levels relative to a standard were also established, but no specific instructions were given for reporting nuclear weapons testing (post-bomb) 14C levels in samples. Because the use of post-bomb 14C is becoming more prevalent in forensics, biology, and geosciences, a convention needs to be adopted. We advocate the use of fraction modern with a new symbol F14C to prevent confusion with the previously used Fm, which may or may not have been fractionation corrected. We also discuss the calibration of post-bomb 14C samples and the available datasets and compilations, but do not give a recommendation for a particular dataset.

Recognizing and reporting child physical abuse: a cross sectional survey of primary health care professionals

Objectives: To assess primary health care professionalsâ?? ability to recognise child physical abuse within their everyday practice. Design: Cross-sectional survey Participants: A stratified random sample of 979 nurses, doctors, and dentists working in primary care in NI. Results: Four hundred and thirty one primary health care professionals responded [44% response rate]. Thirty two per cent were doctors, 35% were dentists and 33% were nurse professionals. The mean age was 41.63 years. Fifty-nine percent (251) stated that they had seen a suspicious case of child physical abuse and 47% (201) said they had reported it. Seventy-two per cent (310) of participants were aware of the mechanisms for reporting child physical abuse. Ability and willingness to recognise and report abuse discriminated the three professions. Conclusions: The findings suggest a professional reluctance to engage in recognising and reporting abuse. Barriers could be reduced by providing training and professional support for the primary care professionals.