{"report_id":368,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"319","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"A child protection report not being made following the 3-year old being seen in the emergency room and having two head contusions, which the mother could not explain was influenced by the age of the child, as well as location of the injury on the subject child's head.  These injuries on a 3-year old can also be explained as a result of normative childhood activities.  Additionally, the severity of the injury did not meet the perceived threshold required for medical personnel to make a child protection report.  Multiple competing priorities were occurring in the emergency room where the child was seen which further impacted the report not being made.  This included the time it takes to make a child protection report, the number of designated people in the emergency department to make child protection reports, as well as, the time the provider spends with a patient is historically shorter in the emergency department versus an appointment with a primary care provider.\r\n\r\nAn additional influence supporting a child protection report not being made was the fact that the subject child was seen at a different hospital and by a provider who was not familiar with the family, making it difficult to understand the child's medical history.  Furthermore, in situations like this, it can be difficult to access medical records at the time of the emergency room visit to better understand the child due to the limited amount of time spent in the emergency room.    Lastly, the decision to not make a child protection report was further impacted by the fact that the threshold for mandated reporting can be subjective.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:32:13 pm","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:32:13 pm","id":34261}