Cargando…

The unseen child and safeguarding: ‘Did not attend’ guidelines in the NHS

BACKGROUND: Organisations in England's National Health Service (NHS) are required to have ‘did not attend’ (DNA) guidelines to help deal with the ‘unseen child’. AIMS: To map DNA and associated guidelines in paediatric services, examine differences in safeguarding response and advice in the gui...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Arai, Lisa, Stephenson, Terence, Roberts, Helen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4453590/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25776931
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2014-307294
_version_ 1782374479846965248
author Arai, Lisa
Stephenson, Terence
Roberts, Helen
author_facet Arai, Lisa
Stephenson, Terence
Roberts, Helen
author_sort Arai, Lisa
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Organisations in England's National Health Service (NHS) are required to have ‘did not attend’ (DNA) guidelines to help deal with the ‘unseen child’. AIMS: To map DNA and associated guidelines in paediatric services, examine differences in safeguarding response and advice in the guidelines and explore the experience of guideline users. METHODS: A mapping approach was used to locate current DNA guidelines on English NHS organisations’ websites. Analysis of the guidelines was supplemented with qualitative data from those who produce, monitor or use them. RESULTS: Fewer than 8% of English NHS organisations had up-to-date guidelines in the public domain, though a further 41% stated that they had a DNA/similar policy in place or had an out-of-date guideline on their website. Advice to healthcare providers about the steps to take when a child DNAs fell into five categories: reflection and review; direct interaction with the family; indirect interaction with the family; liaison with internal colleagues; and external referral. Interviews with eight individuals led to the identification of four themes. The management of information flows was central to the effective management of DNA. Respondents also reported seeking support and advice from others. While all respondents spoke about the importance of supporting the family, the child's needs were central to dealing with non-attendance, and respondents demonstrated awareness of wider risk discourses. CONCLUSIONS: We consider the implications of the work and suggest that evidence-informed guidelines developed nationally but tailored to specific services might be helpful for providers and users alike.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4453590
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44535902015-06-05 The unseen child and safeguarding: ‘Did not attend’ guidelines in the NHS Arai, Lisa Stephenson, Terence Roberts, Helen Arch Dis Child Original Article BACKGROUND: Organisations in England's National Health Service (NHS) are required to have ‘did not attend’ (DNA) guidelines to help deal with the ‘unseen child’. AIMS: To map DNA and associated guidelines in paediatric services, examine differences in safeguarding response and advice in the guidelines and explore the experience of guideline users. METHODS: A mapping approach was used to locate current DNA guidelines on English NHS organisations’ websites. Analysis of the guidelines was supplemented with qualitative data from those who produce, monitor or use them. RESULTS: Fewer than 8% of English NHS organisations had up-to-date guidelines in the public domain, though a further 41% stated that they had a DNA/similar policy in place or had an out-of-date guideline on their website. Advice to healthcare providers about the steps to take when a child DNAs fell into five categories: reflection and review; direct interaction with the family; indirect interaction with the family; liaison with internal colleagues; and external referral. Interviews with eight individuals led to the identification of four themes. The management of information flows was central to the effective management of DNA. Respondents also reported seeking support and advice from others. While all respondents spoke about the importance of supporting the family, the child's needs were central to dealing with non-attendance, and respondents demonstrated awareness of wider risk discourses. CONCLUSIONS: We consider the implications of the work and suggest that evidence-informed guidelines developed nationally but tailored to specific services might be helpful for providers and users alike. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-06 2015-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4453590/ /pubmed/25776931 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2014-307294 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Original Article
Arai, Lisa
Stephenson, Terence
Roberts, Helen
The unseen child and safeguarding: ‘Did not attend’ guidelines in the NHS
title The unseen child and safeguarding: ‘Did not attend’ guidelines in the NHS
title_full The unseen child and safeguarding: ‘Did not attend’ guidelines in the NHS
title_fullStr The unseen child and safeguarding: ‘Did not attend’ guidelines in the NHS
title_full_unstemmed The unseen child and safeguarding: ‘Did not attend’ guidelines in the NHS
title_short The unseen child and safeguarding: ‘Did not attend’ guidelines in the NHS
title_sort unseen child and safeguarding: ‘did not attend’ guidelines in the nhs
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4453590/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25776931
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2014-307294
work_keys_str_mv AT arailisa theunseenchildandsafeguardingdidnotattendguidelinesinthenhs
AT stephensonterence theunseenchildandsafeguardingdidnotattendguidelinesinthenhs
AT robertshelen theunseenchildandsafeguardingdidnotattendguidelinesinthenhs
AT arailisa unseenchildandsafeguardingdidnotattendguidelinesinthenhs
AT stephensonterence unseenchildandsafeguardingdidnotattendguidelinesinthenhs
AT robertshelen unseenchildandsafeguardingdidnotattendguidelinesinthenhs