A study by the Social Workers Union in January 2012 revealed that 81% of social workers expressed concern about unmanageable caseloads, and 56% serious concern.
If the government wants this scheme to be effective in catching early signs of abuse or neglect they have to invest more in the social services as well to be able to handle the referrals, and to invest similarly in the NHS if it will mean extra work for staff many of whom are over-stretched anyway.
Thats right, you assume the worst.
We are not being criminalised.
All visits to A and E are recorded and this database is an extenasion to that log. However one of the indicators of abuse is repeated visits to A and E, often to different hospitals and so the abuse can be missed. You or me with a sick or injured child would go to our local hospital who would have all the case notes there, and the doctor would have all the information to make a decision of suspected abuse. Abusers take their children to many hospitals knowing that the doctors can't check - so a national database will allow the doctors to make decisions.
It is not a way to reduce visits to hospital (nothing could be worse there that a parent doesn't take a sick or injred child to hospital - that screams abuse louder than many visits)
Suspicius accident then? parent shuts the door and child gets fingers trapped by accident - or parent shuts door on fingers on purpose - same injury, so how do you decide? This happens every other month and then you get suspicious - but onlyif you know it happens
Parents are not being stigmatized
parents were questioned thirty years ago if there child went to accident and emergency too often , visits have always been logged
in the case of baby P good old common sense should of been in place
The point of logging visits is to try to spot patterns of repeated injuries to children which might suggest abuse, taking a child to A&E is not suspicious unless it happens regularly.
Logging a visit is hardly criminalizing a visit. I guess they are getting sick of articles suggesting "Authorities Should have Known" or "Child with history of abuse falls through cracks"
If a kid gets hurt and requires ER assistance isn't it appropriate that the visit is logged, regardless of the cause?
I understand the staff at these units have been told to keep a special watch out for anything they might think is any kind of abuse.
As I understand it, these new measures apply to children who are already on an "at risk" register. In other words, this isn't intended to criminalise parents whose child falls off his bike. We're talking about children who are already considered to be in danger of abuse.
the problem being those who do abuse their children will know about this and not take their children for treatment - leading to more deaths
latest witch hunt, I got the third degree when my son split his head open when he was 5, but the thing was, it occurred in the school play ground, all they had to do was phone the headmistress to check
Come on you can't say that, its just a procedure they have to go through.........
so the visit will be logged, but why are they assuming that abuse has taken place?
This will only be of value if follow up investigation is made, and so a phone call with 30 questions or a visit to the child's home might take place.
Only if the accident is suspicious should there be any investigation.
Could this lead to parents not going to accident and emergency units, or is this a deliberate attempt to stop visits to accident and emergency units?
