Interviews with health professionals about the National Child Protection Alert System.

AIM: The New Zealand National Child Protection Alert System is administered by multidisciplinary teams in every district health board. The aim of this study was to investigate the factors that influence multidisciplinary child protection teams' (MDTs') decisions about whether to place a child protection alert. METHOD: Members of the Child Protection Alert System teams were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Interview data were coded and grouped into themes using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Six themes were identified: the system works well; a wide range of factors are considered in multidisciplinary team decision-making; there are some difficulties with multidisciplinary team meetings; there are problems with the administration of the system across district health boards; there is concern about the potential for the Child Protection Alert System to stigmatise families or cause unjustified responses; improvements can be made to the system. CONCLUSION: There is overall support for the National Child Protection Alert System and a consensus that the benefits outweigh any potential risks. There is a need for further improvements to the system, including consistent training, further standardisation and increased accessibility of the information to health professionals, including making information on the system available to primary healthcare.

Health professionals' perception of the New Zealand National Child Protection Alert System: An online survey.

AIM: To describe the multi-disciplinary child protection teams which administer the National Child Protection Alert System in District Health Boards in New Zealand and the understanding and perceptions of that system held by team members. METHODS: This is a mixed-method observational study. In December 2016 and January 2017, all child protection alert system multi-disciplinary team members were invited to participate in an online survey. Quantitative data were expressed with simple descriptive statistics. Qualitative findings were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Ninety-one (56.9%) of 160 team members nationwide completed the survey. All 20 District Health Boards and multiple disciplines were represented. Most respondents agreed that they received good information to make decisions (74/90, 82.2%), that it was usually easy to reach consensus (82/91, 90.1%), that the system helped to keep children safe (72/91, 79.1%) and that it did not stigmatise families (49/91, 53.9%). Qualitative analysis identified considerable variation in understanding of the system and a need for more training to support more consistent implementation of the system. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, health professionals responsible for the child protection alert system regard it positively but express a need for more training for team members and front-line staff to maximise the system's potential and minimise any risk of stigmatisation.