Comparing types of child fatality review in the U.S.

Vincent J. Palusci
{"title":"Comparing types of child fatality review in the U.S.","authors":"Vincent J. Palusci","doi":"10.1016/j.chipro.2024.100040","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Child fatality review programs consist of multidisciplinary teams of professionals, agencies and community members with an interest in caring for and protecting children. While the purpose of all child fatality reviews is to conduct a comprehensive, multidisciplinary review of child fatalities to better understand how and why children die, there are distinct types of reviews in the United States that each use findings to take action to prevent other fatalities and improve the health and safety of children in different ways. Each brings a unique perspective, incorporating different stakeholders and methodologies and playing different roles in identifying patterns, gaps in services, and potential areas for improvement within the broader context of child health and safety. Three major types of review now consistently used across the U.S. include Child Death Review, Fetal Infant Mortality Review, and Citizen Review Panels. These differ in their history of development, statutory authority, financial support, nature of cases reviewed, processes, and reporting to stakeholders. This article is an introduction to the major different types of community-based death review to help practitioners understand and participate more productively in these processes to prevent further fatalities.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100237,"journal":{"name":"Child Protection and Practice","volume":"2 ","pages":"Article 100040"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950193824000408/pdfft?md5=b12648d7052d2dcbdb82d70731f5a137&pid=1-s2.0-S2950193824000408-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child Protection and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950193824000408","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Child fatality review programs consist of multidisciplinary teams of professionals, agencies and community members with an interest in caring for and protecting children. While the purpose of all child fatality reviews is to conduct a comprehensive, multidisciplinary review of child fatalities to better understand how and why children die, there are distinct types of reviews in the United States that each use findings to take action to prevent other fatalities and improve the health and safety of children in different ways. Each brings a unique perspective, incorporating different stakeholders and methodologies and playing different roles in identifying patterns, gaps in services, and potential areas for improvement within the broader context of child health and safety. Three major types of review now consistently used across the U.S. include Child Death Review, Fetal Infant Mortality Review, and Citizen Review Panels. These differ in their history of development, statutory authority, financial support, nature of cases reviewed, processes, and reporting to stakeholders. This article is an introduction to the major different types of community-based death review to help practitioners understand and participate more productively in these processes to prevent further fatalities.

美国儿童死亡审查类型比较
儿童死亡事故审查计划由关心关爱和保护儿童的专业人士、机构和社区成员组成的多学科团队构成。虽然所有儿童死亡事故审查的目的都是对儿童死亡事故进行全面、多学科的审查,以更好地了解儿童死亡的方式和原因,但在美国,审查有不同的类型,每种类型都利用审查结果采取行动,以不同的方式防止其他死亡事故并改善儿童的健康和安全。每种审查都带来了独特的视角,纳入了不同的利益相关者和方法,在更广泛的儿童健康和安全背景下,在确定模式、服务差距和潜在改进领域方面发挥着不同的作用。目前,美国各地一直在使用的三种主要审查方式包括儿童死亡审查、胎儿婴儿死亡率审查和公民审查小组。它们在发展历史、法定权限、财政支持、审查案例的性质、流程以及向利益相关者报告等方面各不相同。本文介绍了基于社区的死亡评审的主要不同类型,以帮助从业人员了解并更有效地参与这些过程,从而防止更多死亡事故的发生。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信