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 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.
The Florida Child Protection Team (CPT) program is a statewide assessment model that was developed to provide objective multidisciplinary evaluations of complex cases of alleged child maltreatment. However, only limited research has examined the content and quality of CPT assessment practices. In fact, the limited research on the quality and content of child protection assessments in relation to child protection assessment "best practices" is a system wide problem. In the current study, we sought to systematically evaluate the assessment practices of a pilot sample of CPTs. Specifically, we were interested in gaining a better understanding of the population served by CPTs, the types of evaluations offered, the content of the assessments, clinical interpretations and findings, and recommendations. The results show areas in which CPT functions as an effective multidisciplinary assessment team and relative weaknesses in assessment practices that may require changes in CPT policy and/or additional training.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.