A short report of a Scottish audit of disability and child protection medical examinations

Abstract A Scottish national child protection audit has shown that practitioners can have differing understanding of the term ‘disability’ and are variable in their own recording of disabilities. It was apparent from the audit that disability was more likely to be recorded for older children than those under five. The audit found that an abuse allegation is less likely to be substantiated for disabled children by a Child Protection Medical Examination. For disabled children in our sample, there was a ‘substantiation of abuse rate’ of 33%, which was less than the 56% rate for non‐disabled children. The differences in rates encourage us to consider what is an appropriate response when disabled children may have experienced harm and abuse. The audit highlights the vulnerability of disabled children to abuse and indicates the need to equip practitioners with the skills, competencies and confidence to engage with and support this vulnerable group.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Child Abuse Review
Published
2024-11-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2906
Primary Topic
Child Abuse and Trauma
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A short report of a Scottish audit of disability and child protection medical examinations

Julie Scott Taylor, John Devaney, Stephanie Govenden, Alex McTier
Child Abuse Review
Child Abuse and Trauma
article

A short report of a Scottish audit of disability and child protection medical examinations

Julie Scott Taylor, John Devaney, Stephanie Govenden, Alex McTier
article en

Abstract

Abstract A Scottish national child protection audit has shown that practitioners can have differing understanding of the term ‘disability’ and are variable in their own recording of disabilities. It was apparent from the audit that disability was more likely to be recorded for older children than those under five. The audit found that an abuse allegation is less likely to be substantiated for disabled children by a Child Protection Medical Examination. For disabled children in our sample, there was a ‘substantiation of abuse rate’ of 33%, which was less than the 56% rate for non‐disabled children. The differences in rates encourage us to consider what is an appropriate response when disabled children may have experienced harm and abuse. The audit highlights the vulnerability of disabled children to abuse and indicates the need to equip practitioners with the skills, competencies and confidence to engage with and support this vulnerable group.

Child Abuse ReviewVol. 33(6)
University of Strathclyde (GB), Raigmore Hospital (GB), NHS Highland (GB), Centre for Excellence for Looked After Children in Scotland (GB), University of Birmingham (GB), University of Edinburgh (GB)
Quality Education
Openalex Percentile: Top 72%
Child Abuse and Trauma
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

A short report of a Scottish audit of disability and child protection medical examinations — Julie Scott Taylor, John Devaney, et al. · Child Abuse Review (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS