Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Can child safeguarding training be improved?: findings of a multidisciplinary audit

  • 2 Accesses

Abstract

Introduction

Child protection has become a very poignant subject in the UK. The Laming report into the death of Victoria Climbié led to the implementation of multidisciplinary safeguarding policies and training for healthcare professionals, social services staff and police. However, many dental practitioners, as well as other healthcare professionals, have little confidence when reporting their concerns and reducing the ‘gap’ between suspicion and reporting (Laming in The victoria climbie inquiry: report of an inquiry by Lord Laming, 2003. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-victoria-climbie-inquiry-report-of-an-inquiry-by-lord-laming). Our audit aimed to identify and address the barriers of reporting safeguarding concerns amongst the hospital team.

Materials and methods

Questionnaires were distributed to staff at Surrey and Sussex Healthcare National Health Service Trust with a valid Safeguarding Children Level 3 certificate in order to assess their knowledge of safeguarding children. Changes to traditional safeguarding training (Group 1) were implemented to include a broader range of speakers, each speaking for shorter times with more personal and focused presentations (Groups 2 and 3). Three cohorts of participants were assessed including healthcare assistants, nurses, dentists, and doctors.

Results

Group 1 (n = 100) reported 64% experience of reporting compared with group 2 (n = 100) 43% and group 3 (n = 76) 51%. Confidence was higher in those with more experience in child protection. The most common barrier was the uncertainty of diagnosis. More barriers to reporting existed in the new style of training in groups 2 and 3. The scenarios were answered with appropriate concern and reporting by groups 1 and 2, however, less for group 3.

Discussion

Experienced and trained practitioners are more likely to refer children to child protection teams when they have concerns of abuse or neglect. Personalising training was shown to be less effective and the focus should be more on diagnosis and local protocols. Early training from undergraduate level was a unanimous request.

Conclusion

Focused training on diagnosis and local protocols, accompanied by bespoke teaching for specific specialties would be the most constructive tool for safeguarding children. Exploring modern methods such as simulation-based training could be effective. Structured forms and local policies that are familiar to clinicians prevent omissions and encourage professional awareness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Al-Dabaan R, Newton JT, Asimakopoulou K. Knowledge, attitudes, and experience of dentists living in Saudi Arabia toward child abuse and neglect. Saudi Dental J. 2014;26:79–87.

  2. Al-Habsi SA, Roberts GJ, Attari N, Parekh S. A survey of attitudes, knowledge and practice of dentists in London towards child protection. Are children receiving dental treatment at the Eastman Dental Hospital likely to be on the child protection register? Br Dent J. 2009;206:E7.

  3. Baginsky M, Macpherson P. Training teachers to safeguard children developing a consistent approach. Child Abuse Rev. 2005;14(5):317–30.

  4. Bannon MJ, Carter YH. Paediatricians and child protection: the need for effective education and training. Arch Dis Child. 2003;88:560–2.

  5. British Dental Association. Child protection and the dental team (2006 revised 2009). https://bda.org/childprotection/Resources/Documents/Childprotectionandthedentalteam_v1_4_Nov09.pdf. Accessed June 2019.

  6. Cairns AM, Mok JY, Welbury RR. The dental practitioner and child protection in Scotland. Br Dent J. 2005a;199:517–20.

  7. Cairns AM, Mok JY, Welbury RR. Injuries to the head, face, mouth, and neck in physically abused children in a community setting. Int J Pediatr Dent. 2005b;15(5):310–8.

  8. Carter YH, Bannon MJ, Limbert C, et al. Improving child protection: a systematic review of training and procedural interventions. Arch Dis Child. 2006;91:740–3.

  9. Charles M, Horwath J. Investing in interagency training to safeguard children: an act of faith or an act of reason? Child Soc. 2009;23(5):364–76.

  10. Department for Education. Working together to safeguard children: statuary guidance on inter0agency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children (2018). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/working-together-to-safeguard-children–2. Accessed June 2019.

  11. Fish S, Munro E, Bairstow S. SCIE Report 19: Learning together to safeguard children: developing a multi-agency systems approach for case reviews (2008) Social Care Institute for Excellence. https://www.scie.org.uk/publications/reports/reprt19.asp. Accessed Feb 2020.

  12. General Medical Council. Protecting children and young people (2012 updated 2018). https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/protecting-children-and-young-people.

  13. Harris JC, Balmer RC, Sidebotham PD. British society of paediatric dentistry: a policy document on dental neglect in children. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2009a;23(1):64–71.

  14. Harris JC, Elcock C, Sidebotham PD, Welbury RR. Safeguarding children in dentistry: 1. Child protection training, experience and practice of dental professionals with an interest in paediatric dentistry. Br Dent J. 2009b;206:409–14.

  15. Harris JC, Elcock C, Sidebotham PD, Welbury RR. Safeguarding children in dentistry: 2. Do paediatric dentists neglect child dental neglect? Br Dent J. 2009c;260:465–70.

  16. Jackson B, Tomson M. Embedding a sustainable skills-based safeguarding children course across multiple postgraduate general practice training programmes. Educ Prim Care. 2017;28(1):59–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/14739879.2016.1250608.

  17. Laming (2003) The victoria climbie inquiry: report of an inquiry by Lord Laming. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-victoria-climbie-inquiry-report-of-an-inquiry-by-lord-laming. Accessed June 2019.

  18. Laming. The protection of children in England: A progress report (2009) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-protection-of-children-in-england-a-progress-report. Accessed June 2019.

  19. Laud A, Gizani S, Maragkou S, Welbury R, Papagiannoulis. Child protection training, experience, and personal views of dentists in the prefecture of Attica, Greece. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2013;23(1):64–71.

  20. Lazenbatt A, Freeman R. Recognizing and reporting child physical abuse: a survey of primary healthcare professionals. J Adv Nurs. 2006;56:227–36.

  21. NSPCC Child protection plan statistics (2019). https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/research-resources/child-protection-plan-register-statistics/. Accessed June 2019.

  22. Public Health England. Safeguarding in general dental practice: atoolkit for dental teams. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/791681/Guidance_for_Safeguarding_in_GDP.pdf. Accessed June 2019.

  23. Royal College of Nursing and Royal College of General Practice. Safeguarding children and young people: roles and competencies for healthcare staff (2019) www.rcn.org.uk/clinical-topics/safeguarding. Accessed June 2019.

  24. Welbury RR, MacAskill SG, Murphy JM, et al. General dental practitioners’ perception of their role within child protection: a qualitative study. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2003;4:89–95.

  25. Wyllie E, Batley K. Skills for safe practice-a qualitative study to evaluate the use of simulation in safeguarding children teaching for pre-registration children’s nurses. Nurse Educ Pract. 2019;34:p85–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2018.11.009.

Download references

Funding

This study was not funded.

Author information

Correspondence to A. Patrick.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (include name of committee + reference number) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patrick, A., Kandiah, T. & Welbury, R. Can child safeguarding training be improved?: findings of a multidisciplinary audit. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-020-00513-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Safeguarding
  • Child protection
  • Abuse
  • Neglect
  • Training