OBJECTIVE: To give an overview of disciplinary cases regarding action taken by paediatricians and paediatric residents in cases of (suspected) child abuse and to discuss the considerations of the disciplinary board in these cases. DESIGN: Retrospective, descriptive study. METHOD: We considered all disciplinary cases instigated from 2001 to 2013 against paediatricians or paediatric residents and selected complaints regarding action taken in cases of (suspected) child abuse. We divided these complaints into six categories and studied the considerations of the disciplinary board in these cases. RESULTS: From 33 disciplinary cases instigated from 2001 to 2013, we selected 76 complaints regarding action taken by paediatricians or paediatric residents in cases of (suspected) child abuse. The majority of these complaints concerned the reporting or requesting of information in the context of (suspected) child abuse. All of the complaints in the category 'unwarranted reporting of child abuse' were declared unfounded by the disciplinary judge. CONCLUSION: The disciplinary board declared all complaints unfounded in cases where the paediatrician or paediatric resident had followed the Dutch national protocol regarding reporting of child abuse and domestic violence. The disciplinary board examines whether action was taken in accordance with reasonable standards of professional competence and considers that paediatricians have an important role in identifying child abuse.
OBJECTIVE: To give an overview of disciplinary cases regarding action taken by paediatricians and paediatric residents in cases of (suspected) child abuse and to discuss the considerations of the disciplinary board in these cases. DESIGN: Retrospective, descriptive study. METHOD: We considered all disciplinary cases instigated from 2001 to 2013 against paediatricians or paediatric residents and selected complaints regarding action taken in cases of (suspected) child abuse. We divided these complaints into six categories and studied the considerations of the disciplinary board in these cases. RESULTS: From 33 disciplinary cases instigated from 2001 to 2013, we selected 76 complaints regarding action taken by paediatricians or paediatric residents in cases of (suspected) child abuse. The majority of these complaints concerned the reporting or requesting of information in the context of (suspected) child abuse. All of the complaints in the category 'unwarranted reporting of child abuse' were declared unfounded by the disciplinary judge. CONCLUSION: The disciplinary board declared all complaints unfounded in cases where the paediatrician or paediatric resident had followed the Dutch national protocol regarding reporting of child abuse and domestic violence. The disciplinary board examines whether action was taken in accordance with reasonable standards of professional competence and considers that paediatricians have an important role in identifying child abuse.
Authors: Jill R McTavish; Melissa Kimber; Karen Devries; Manuela Colombini; Jennifer C D MacGregor; C Nadine Wathen; Arnav Agarwal; Harriet L MacMillan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-10-16 Impact factor: 2.692