{"report_id":333,"form_id":"22","user_id":81,"organization_id":13,"question_id":"322","question_type":"Free_Text","text_answer":"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 Family Assessment\/Family Investigation (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\nFurther 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.","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":33856}