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.

An audit of assessment and reporting by Approved Social Workers (ASWs)

This paper examines the routine practice of Approved Social Workers (ASWs) in adult mental health services in Northern Ireland. It begins with a review of existing literature on the ASW role before describing how a retrospective audit, using a mixed methods approach, was used to collect data on eighty-four assessments carried out to determine whether compulsory admission to hospital was needed. Respondents were also asked to consider how such assessments might be affected by proposed changes to the law in this field. The key findings highlighted a number of areas of practice that may be improved. There were inconsistencies in how the assessments were recorded and an uneven distribution of workloads across ASWs. Some problems were identified with interagency working and, in a quarter of the assessments, the ASW reported having felt afraid or at risk. The authors make a number of recommendations, which include: the use of a standard reporting procedure; that organisations should consider how to deliver a more even distribution of ASW workload; that protocols should be developed that ensure that ASWs are not left alone in potentially risky situations; and that joint assessments with General Practitioners should be required, rather than just recommended.

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.

The Hand of Government in Shaping Accounting and Reporting in the UK Charity Sector

Accounting in the UK charity sector has changed massively over the last 25 years, with various stakeholders influencing what has occurred. Using insights from stakeholder theory, and interviews with a number of key actors, this article focuses on the influence of one definitive stakeholder – government – in developing a regime of quality accounting and reporting in the sector. In particular, the evolution of the Statement of Recommended Practice for charities is explored. It is argued that a much tighter and more meaningful regime of accounting and reporting has been encouraged by government, amongst other stakeholders, and this has led to a more accountable and healthier charitable sector.

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.

Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol

Introduction Emerging evidence suggests that patient-reported outcome (PRO)-specific information may be omitted in trial protocols and that PRO results are poorly reported, limiting the use of PRO data to inform cancer care. This study aims to evaluate the standards of PRO-specific content in UK cancer trial protocols and their arising publications and to highlight examples of best-practice PRO protocol content and reporting where they occur. The objective of this study is to determine if these early findings are generalisable to UK cancer trials, and if so, how best we can bring about future improvements in clinical trials methodology to enhance the way PROs are assessed, managed and reported. Hypothesis: Trials in which the primary end point is based on a PRO will have more complete PRO protocol and publication components than trials in which PROs are secondary end points.

Methods and analysis Completed National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio Cancer clinical trials (all cancer specialities/age-groups) will be included if they contain a primary/secondary PRO end point. The NIHR portfolio includes cancer trials, supported by a range of funders, adjudged as high-quality clinical research studies. The sample will be drawn from studies completed between 31 December 2000 and 1 March 2014 (n=1141) to allow sufficient time for completion of the final trial report and publication. Two reviewers will then review the protocols and arising publications of included trials to: (1) determine the completeness of their PRO-specific protocol content; (2) determine the proportion and completeness of PRO reporting in UK Cancer trials and (3) model factors associated with PRO protocol and reporting completeness and with PRO reporting proportion.

Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the ethics committee at University of Birmingham (ERN_15-0311). Trial findings will be disseminated via presentations at local, national and international conferences, peer-reviewed journals and social media including the CPROR twitter account and UOB departmental website (http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/cpro0r).

Exploring the Influence of Reporting Delay on Criminal Justice Outcomes: Comparing Child and Adult Reporters of Childhood Sexual Abuse

Delay between disclosure and reporting child sexual abuse is common and has significant implications for the prosecution of such offenses. While we might expect the relationship to be a linear one with longer delay reducing the likelihood of prosecution, the present study confirms a more complex interaction. Utilizing data from 2,079 police records in Northern Ireland, the study investigated the impact of reporting delay on pretrial criminal justice outcomes for child and adult reporters of child sexual abuse. While teenagers were found to be the group most disadvantaged by reporting delay, increased delay actually appeared advantageous for some groups, notably adult females reporting offenses that occurred when they were 0 to 6 years old. Conversely, adult males reporting child sexual abuse did not appear to benefit from increased delay, suggesting both an adult and gender bias within decision-making processes. The implications for future research are discussed. 

Uses of expertise:Sources, quotes, and voice in the reporting of genetics in the news

Science journalists call upon experts for background and for clarification and comment on scientific findings. This paper examines how science writers choose and use experts, and it focuses on several cases of reporting about genetics and behavior. Our research included two sources of data: interviews with 15 science reporters and three print media samples of coverage of genetics and behavior - alcoholism (between 1980-1995), homosexuality (in 1993 and 1995), and mental illness (between 1970-1995). Science reporters seek relevant and specific experts for nearly every story. Good sources are knowledgeable, are connected to prestigious institutions, are direct and articulate and don't overqualify statements, and they return phone calls. The mean number of experts quoted was 2.8 per story, differing for alcoholism (3.5), homosexuality (2.8), and mental illness (2.6). Researchers and scientists predominated among experts quoted. Quotes were used to provide context, give legitimization, as explication, to provide a kind of balance, and to outline implications. For the homosexuality sample, a significantly greater percentage of activists and advocates were quoted (21 percent compared with 5 percent and 1 percent in other samples, X <0.0001). "Lay" quotes for alcoholism and mental illness were minimal. Except for homosexuality, whose advocates are organized, those "affected" do not have a voice in genetics news stories.