These issues detract from a person-centred approach. It is important therefore that practitioners are aware of ways in which information can become distorted.
Information being treated discretely.
The focus may be one child and incident. Can you tell me what happened when dad picked Carys up at the family centre? This can lead to very specific responses that focus on one aspect of concern about a child or marginalise other children who may be at risk. A person giving information may also be selective as to what they share because they may, for example, fear the response of a service provider or over-identify with that provider.
Selective interpretation of information as relevant or irrelevant.
For example, ‘what do you know about Carys? A generalised request for information may be made’. When this occurs, the practitioner providing information is left to decide what is relevant or not.
The rule of optimism.
For example, ‘I just thought I better check this out with you but I’m sure there is nothing to warrant looking at this further’. If the practitioner eliciting information believes that there is no real issue but are following the procedures, they may take a dismissive - nothing to worry - approach which elicits a similar optimistic response from the person supplying the information.
Fixed ideas or overriding beliefs about the situation.
For example, ‘Can you tell us about Carys we know her family of old and I’m not surprised we’ve had yet another report about physical abuse by her dad. The practitioner who has taken the report may already have formed an initial view about the concerns and perpetrator. Their tone of voice or the information requested may unintentionally elicit information from others that confirms their opinion.
When these subjective approaches come into play as noted by Robinson et al., (2018)
‘the range of options open to the individual would narrow rather than broaden. Cases could become ‘stuck’; tunnel vision reinforces a particular view of the person, which results in a particular set of options being tried. When these do not work it is rarely the case that practitioners’ step outside of the tunnel to re-evaluate their options.’ (p9)
Further information:
Font S and Maguire-Jack K Decision-making in Child Protective Services: Influences at multiple levels of the social ecology, (Accessed 21/ 7/ 2019)
Robinson, A, Rees, A and Dehaghani R (2018) Findings from a thematic analysis into adult deaths in Wales: Domestic Homicide Reviews, Adult Practice Reviews and Mental Health Homicide Reviews Cardiff University, (Accessed 21/ 7/ 2019)
Working Together to Safeguard People: Information Sharing for Safeguarding Child