International journal of paediatric dentistry · 1999
Child protection: a survey of experience and knowledge within the dental profession of New South Wales, Australia.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kilpatrick N M, Scott J, Robinson S
Аннотация
AIM: To establish the experience and knowledge of dental practitioners in New South Wales, Australia in the area of child abuse and protection.
DESIGN: A cross-sectional telephone questionnaire.
SAMPLE: One hundred and twenty-two interviews; 67 general dental practitioners randomly selected and 55 members of the Australia and New Zealand Society of Paediatric Dentistry.
RESULTS: All of the dentists interviewed could identify physical abuse and most identified emotional abuse, however, none could describe all five forms of abuse. Significantly more (58%) members of the paediatric dental society had at some time suspected abuse, compared with only 24% of the general practitioners. However, only 20 of the paediatric dentists and seven general practitioners had actually reported any cases. The main reason given for not reporting concerned confidentiality. Seventy-two per cent of general practitioners did not know their legal obligations or with whom they could discuss any concerns. While paediatric dentists achieved a better percentage, still over half of them were similarly unsure.
CONCLUSIONS: Further education and training is required for both the dental profession and the child protection agencies to improve the inter-agency working relationship and thus provide better protection for children.
DESIGN: A cross-sectional telephone questionnaire.
SAMPLE: One hundred and twenty-two interviews; 67 general dental practitioners randomly selected and 55 members of the Australia and New Zealand Society of Paediatric Dentistry.
RESULTS: All of the dentists interviewed could identify physical abuse and most identified emotional abuse, however, none could describe all five forms of abuse. Significantly more (58%) members of the paediatric dental society had at some time suspected abuse, compared with only 24% of the general practitioners. However, only 20 of the paediatric dentists and seven general practitioners had actually reported any cases. The main reason given for not reporting concerned confidentiality. Seventy-two per cent of general practitioners did not know their legal obligations or with whom they could discuss any concerns. While paediatric dentists achieved a better percentage, still over half of them were similarly unsure.
CONCLUSIONS: Further education and training is required for both the dental profession and the child protection agencies to improve the inter-agency working relationship and thus provide better protection for children.