Multidisciplinary child protection decision making about physical abuse: Determining substantiation thresholds and biases

The current study examined the threshold at which multidisciplinary child protection team (CPT) professionals substantiate physical abuse allegations and the extent that they utilize potentially biased constructs in their decision making when presented with the same case evidence. State legal definitions of child maltreatment are broad. Therefore, the burden of interpretation is largely on CPT professionals who must determine at what threshold physical acts by parents surpass corporal discipline and constitute child physical abuse. Biased or subjective decisions may be made if certain case-specific characteristics or CPT professionals' personal characteristics are used in making physical abuse determinations. Case vignettes with visual depictions of inflicted injuries were sent to CPT professionals in Florida and their substantiation decisions, personal beliefs about corporal discipline, and coercive discipline were collected. Results of the study demonstrated relatively high agreement among professionals across vignettes about what constitutes physical abuse. Further, CPT professionals strongly considered their perceptions of the severity of inflicted injuries in substantiation decisions. Although case specific characteristics did not bias decisions in a systematic way, some CPT professional characteristics influenced the substantiation of physical abuse. Practice implications and future directions of research are discussed. ► Inflicted injury leaving mark suggests physical abuse to child protection team (CPT). ► Injury severity perception indicates whether injury is classified as physical abuse. ► Case-specific factors do not appear to impact substantiation decisions. ► Some CPT professional characteristics impacted substantiation decisions

Multidisciplinary child protection decision making about physical abuse: Determining substantiation thresholds and biases

The current study examined the threshold at which multidisciplinary child protection team (CPT) professionals substantiate physical abuse allegations and the extent that they utilize potentially biased constructs in their decision making when presented with the same case evidence. State legal definitions of child maltreatment are broad. Therefore, the burden of interpretation is largely on CPT professionals who must determine at what threshold physical acts by parents surpass corporal discipline and constitute child physical abuse. Biased or subjective decisions may be made if certain case-specific characteristics or CPT professionals' personal characteristics are used in making physical abuse determinations. Case vignettes with visual depictions of inflicted injuries were sent to CPT professionals in Florida and their substantiation decisions, personal beliefs about corporal discipline, and coercive discipline were collected. Results of the study demonstrated relatively high agreement among professionals across vignettes about what constitutes physical abuse. Further, CPT professionals strongly considered their perceptions of the severity of inflicted injuries in substantiation decisions. Although case specific characteristics did not bias decisions in a systematic way, some CPT professional characteristics influenced the substantiation of physical abuse. Practice implications and future directions of research are discussed.Multidisciplinary child protection assessment Physical abuse Decision making Substantiation Bias

The Decision to Access Patient Information From a Social Media Site: What Would You Do?

PURPOSE: The current study examined the prevalence with which healthcare providers use a social media site account (e.g., Facebook), the extent to which they utilize social media sites in clinical practice, and their decision-making process after accessing patient information from a social media site. METHODS: Pediatric faculty and trainees from a medical school campus were provided a social media site history form and seven fictional social media site adolescent profile vignettes that depicted concerning information. Participants were instructed to rate their personal use and beliefs about social media sites and to report how they would respond if they obtained concerning information about an adolescent patient from their public social media site profile. RESULTS: Healthcare providers generally believed it not to be an invasion of privacy to conduct an Internet/social media site search of someone they know. A small percentage of trainees reported a personal history of conducting an Internet search (18%) or a social media site search (14%) for a patient. However, no faculty endorsed a history of conducting searches for patients. Faculty and trainees also differed in how they would respond to concerning social media site adolescent profile information. CONCLUSIONS: The findings that trainees are conducting Internet/social media site searches of patients and that faculty and trainees differ in how they would respond to concerning profile information suggest the need for specific guidelines regarding the role of social media sites in clinical practice. Practice, policy, and training implications are discussed

The Decision to Access Patient Information From a Social Media Site: What Would You Do?

PURPOSE: The current study examined the prevalence with which healthcare providers use a social media site account (e.g., Facebook), the extent to which they utilize social media sites in clinical practice, and their decision-making process after accessing patient information from a social media site. METHODS: Pediatric faculty and trainees from a medical school campus were provided a social media site history form and seven fictional social media site adolescent profile vignettes that depicted concerning information. Participants were instructed to rate their personal use and beliefs about social media sites and to report how they would respond if they obtained concerning information about an adolescent patient from their public social media site profile. RESULTS: Healthcare providers generally believed it not to be an invasion of privacy to conduct an Internet/social media site search of someone they know. A small percentage of trainees reported a personal history of conducting an Internet search (18%) or a social media site search (14%) for a patient. However, no faculty endorsed a history of conducting searches for patients. Faculty and trainees also differed in how they would respond to concerning social media site adolescent profile information. CONCLUSIONS: The findings that trainees are conducting Internet/social media site searches of patients and that faculty and trainees differ in how they would respond to concerning profile information suggest the need for specific guidelines regarding the role of social media sites in clinical practice. Practice, policy, and training implications are discussed