{"report_id":333,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"359","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"LP1 - Prescribed practice around continuity of care for children and with DHS requirements for new CP intakes to not be referred to an already opened workgroup near the 45 day case closure timeline. \r\n\r\nLP1- Research and best practice around continuity of care resulting in safe and healthy outcomes for children and families presented a competing priority and pressure for the local agency to adapt to in this case. Furthermore, this research and best practice presents a goal conflict for child welfare staff regarding the need for pursing the continuity of care while simultaneously trying to meet the requirements to open and document new CP intakes and allegations on the same family. In cases such as this a procedural adaptation was made by the local agency to refer the CP intakes to the open workgroup (although near the 45 day timeline) to support continuity of care for the family.  \r\n\r\nLP2 - As a result of this CP intake initially being screened out and later screened in as a 5 day response, the worker perceived it as a lower priority and prioritized meeting face to face requirements for other cases with allegations with safety and risk concerns that were higher. Supporting that this was a lower priority case was the identified allegation and the response path assignment to family assessment. Unless staff learn of egregious harm, fatality\/near fatality, predatory offender, sexual abuse or any other major injury, the local agency uses a 5 day response per protocol for allegations such as this one. At the time of the incident, the severity of the incident was not believed to be near fatal based upon the information received in the report.  Five day responses are less of a priority for staff because of the intense nature of all other cases received by this FA\/FI specialty unit, which most cases involve severe abuse\/neglect\/egregious harm, and substantial harm that require staff to respond within the same day to meet the 24 hour face to face response timeframe. The implementation of the Department's Intake, Screening, and Response Path guidelines expanded the number of cases that require a 24 hour face to face response, particularly those allegations that are within the predatory offender statute.  As a result, the agency experienced more cases being screened in for a 24 hour face to face response, which impacted the time staff have available to respond to 5 day response cases since they are a lower priority. Due to the high number of cases assigned to this FA\/FI unit, it was not uncommon for supervisors to direct staff to place lower priority on cases like this one to ensure higher priority cases are managed first.  \r\n\r\nLP2 - Further impacting the delay in face to face contact with the alleged victim was that the frontline staff had just made face to face contact with the child two days prior. Additionally, the frontline staff was the professional who learned and reported the new allegation for the critical incident. The staff had knowledge about the child being in the hospital at the time the information was learned, and the staff had not received a cross report from law enforcement, therefore, there was a presumption of safety since the hospital was caring for the victim child. Also supporting the decision to delay face to face contact was that staff did not want to cause additional trauma to the child and her family after the critical incident. At the time of the report the incident was not believed to be a near fatal event, however, the severity of the incident being near fatal was learned when the frontline staff was able to receive medical records regarding the incident, which occurred later in the investigation. The pressure to meet prescribed practice written in statute and admin rule around meeting for face to face timelines in circumstances when a child is presumably safe in a hospital setting, is not aligned or supporting the work. \r\n\r\nLP3- Also impacting face to face contact not being made in this case was that work was being done as prescribed and expected in regards to addressing Ed neglect concerns.  Staff was actively supporting the family's needs around getting the children's attendance to improve. An additional face to face contact would not have changed the trajectory of work in this case as the educational neglect allegations had already been assessed and ongoing work with the family was being conducted.\r\n\r\nLP3 - Furthermore, staff believed that the investigation around the educational neglect allegations had been completed, although not officially closed within SSIS.  As a result staff's interpretation of this new allegation was that it was screened in and the allegations had already been assessed.  Therefore, not requiring an additional face to face to be completed since this was perceived by staff to be a duplicate report and therefore guidance (Intake, Screening, and Response Path Guidelines) would indicate that a report of this type can be screened out as already assessed which would not require face to face to contact.","created_by":81,"updated_by":81,"updated_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:24:46 pm","created_at":"5\/26\/2021 1:24:46 pm","id":33881}