Current and historical involvement of dentistry in child protection and a glimpse of the future

Barriers and factors influencing communication between dental professionals and Child Welfare Services in their everyday work

BACKGROUND

Among various health professionals, general dental professionals (GDPs) screen children frequently, giving them a unique opportunity to act upon suspicion of child maltreatment. The dental team has received considerable attention regarding safeguarding children.

AIM

The aims of this study were to explore whether GDPs have mutual collaboration and communication with the Child Welfare Services (CWS), and potential barriers for reporting child maltreatment.

DESIGN

An electronically pre-coded questionnaire was sent to all GDPs (n = 131) in the Public Dental Health Service (PDHS) in Oslo. Frequency distributions and statistical analysis were carried out by chi-squared statistics and multivariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The response rate was 75%. Ninety per cent of GDPs had received requests from CWS to provide a child's dental chart. General dental professionals reported child maltreatment frequently (71%), but CWS only gave feedback in 55% of the cases. Uncertainty was the most common reason for not reporting and 33% of the GDPs had chosen not to send a report despite suspicion. Using guidelines increased frequency of reporting (OR 3.6).

CONCLUSIONS

Mutual collaboration and communication should be improved in the task of safeguarding children. Uncertainty and lack of guidelines may act as barriers for not reporting to the CWS.

Experience of and barriers to reporting child safeguarding concerns among general dental practitioners across Greater Manchester

Introduction Child abuse and neglect present a significant global concern, therefore, it is imperative that dental professionals can identify children at risk. Previous literature has suggested that general dental practitioners (GDPs) do not feel adequately trained to do so and that there is a gap between the suspicion of abuse and onward referral.Aims To assess the experience of paediatric safeguarding reporting among GDPs in Greater Manchester and investigate the current barriers to reporting safeguarding concerns.Methods An anonymous questionnaire was distributed via email to a sample of general dental practices in Greater Manchester.Results Thirty-six questionnaires were completed, giving a 36% response rate. Fifty-eight percent of respondents had received undergraduate training and 83% had received postgraduate training. Eighty-one percent felt that GDPs require further training and support. Fifty-eight percent of GDPs had been suspicious of at least one case of child abuse or neglect, however, only 28% had completed an onwards referral. Common barriers to reporting included: fear of violence to the child; lack of certainty of diagnosis; and lack of confidence in their suspicions.Conclusion Barriers to the referral of suspected cases of abuse or neglect are still commonly reported. There is a strong demand for further child protection training among GDPs.

Role of a Dentist in the Diagnosis of Child Abuse and Neglect: A Literature and Narrative Review

Background:

Child Abuse (CA) is defined as any physical or psychological harm inflicted upon children. The most commonly affected anatomical region in these cases is the orofacial complex, thereby placing dentists in a dominant position for detecting CA. The statistical figures referred to CA are high, and many cases go unreported.

Objective:

To determine the level of knowledge, the aptitudes and capacity of dentists in reporting cases of CA; the barriers facing the reporting of cases; and the key clinical characteristics for the detection of CA.

Methodology:

A search was made of the PubMed (MEDLINE), ScienceDirect, LILACS and SciELO databases for articles published up until March 2019, involving analytical observational and descriptive studies relevant to the objectives of our study. All articles were independently reviewed by two authors.

Results:

Injuries caused by CA are largely located in the orofacial region – the most prevalent being caries, burns and fractures. The most frequently identified risk factor is behavioral alterations on the part of the parents or caregivers. The reviewed studies reflect a discrepancy between suspected and reported cases of CA.

Conclusion:

Although dentists are able to detect injuries, there is a great lack of knowledge about how to report cases of CA to the authorities. It is interesting to establish guidelines for the detection and reporting of suspicious cases. Improved training in forensic and legal dentistry is needed, together with the establishment of detection and reporting protocols. The clinical signs detected in the case of CA and neglect include untreated caries, poor oral hygiene, traumatisms, burns, lacerations and biting. The recognition of such signs and correct case history compilation are essential for the detection of CA.

Reasons for reported suspicion of child maltreatment and responses from the child welfare - a cross-sectional study of Norwegian public dental health personnel

BACKGROUND

To prevent child maltreatment, the identification of vulnerable children is essential. In Norway, public dental health personnel (PDHP) report suspicion of child maltreatment to child welfare services (CWS) at a relatively high rate. However, their reasons for reporting and the response from CWS have not been investigated. The objectives of this study were to (1) explore the reasons that PDHP send reports of concern, (2) examine how CWS responds to PDHP reports, and (3) assess whether different reasons for concern are associated with a given response from CWS.

METHODS

A national cross-sectional study was conducted by an electronic survey distributed to public dental hygienists and dentists in Norway. Descriptive statistics were calculated in terms of mean (SD) distributions and frequency, expressed as % (n). To account for clustering of responses among respondents, binomial generalized estimating equation analysis was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and confidence intervals (CIs) of CWS responses across number of reports with different reasons for concern.

RESULTS

Of a total of 1542 questionnaire recipients, 1200 (77.8%) responded to the survey. From 2012 to 2014, 42.5% of the respondents sent 1214 reports to CWS, with a mean number of 2.7 (SD = 2.0) reports per respondent. The PDHP sent the reports due to suspicion of neglect or physical, sexual and/or psychological abuse. Non-attendance at dental appointments and grave caries were reported most frequently. Among the reports, 24.5% resulted in measures being taken by CWS, 20.7% were dropped, and 29.4% lacked information from CWS on the outcome. Reports due to suspicion of sexual abuse, (OR 1.979, 95% CI (1.047-3.742), P = 0.036), grave caries (OR 1.628, 95% CI (1.148-2.309), P = 0.006), and suspicion of neglect (OR 1.649, 95% CI (1.190-2.285), P = 0.003) had the highest association with the implementation of measures.

CONCLUSIONS

PDHP report on several forms of child maltreatment and contributes in detection of victimized children. However, the relatively low number of measures being taken by CWS and the number of reports that lack a response to reporters reveal a need for a closer cooperation between the services, as this would benefit both the children at risk and the services.