Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/19261 Record ID: 7c43984a-2cdf-4355-87f8-e3bef2cc2ed3
Full metadata record
| DC Field | Value | Language |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.author | Adams, Jo | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Davies, Emma | en |
| dc.contributor.author | McLain, Jane Koziol | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Neizert, Eva | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Coben, Jeffrey | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Harvey, Sue | en |
| dc.contributor.author | Balzer, Roma | en |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-06-30T23:45:08Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2022-06-30T23:45:08Z | - |
| dc.date.issued | 2004 | en |
| dc.identifier.uri | https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/19261 | - |
| dc.format | A4; 74 p. | en |
| dc.language | en | en |
| dc.publisher | New Zealand Ministry of Health | en |
| dc.subject | Health | en |
| dc.subject | Child protection | en |
| dc.subject | Screening | en |
| dc.title | Hospital responsiveness to family violence : baseline audit findings | en |
| dc.type | Report | en |
| dc.identifier.catalogid | 3772 | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | new_record | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | Report | en |
| dc.subject.keyword | International | en |
| dc.description.notes | The aim of this report is to provide an overview of hospital-based family violence programmes in Aotearoa/New Zealand, to inform decision makers. Baseline hospital responsiveness was measured through audits during site visits. All acute care (secondary and tertiary) public hospitals participated (n=25) over the period of November 2003 to July 2004. Measurement of institutional culture was central to the evaluation. Three data collection methods were used: hospital audits on 3 occasions – at baseline, 12 and 24 months, using a modified Delphi Instrument for Hospital-Based Domestic Violence Programmes (the Delphi); key stakeholder interviews (n=20); focus groups. The modified ‘Delphi’ instrument used for evaluating hospital-based family violence programmes included 2 parts: partner abuse programme elements and child abuse/neglect programme elements. The higher numbers of scores for each section indicate greater system development. Results indicate that partner abuse initiatives are less well-developed than those for child abuse. Overall mean score for Partner Abuse was 21.2 compared to 40.2 for Child Abuse and Neglect. Highest domain scores for Partner Abuse were for ‘Collaboration’ (mean=35) and ‘Intervention Services’ (mean=34). Lowest domain score for Partner Abuse was ‘Documentation’ (mean=6), highest domain score for Child Abuse and Neglect was for ‘Intervention Services’ (mean=62). Lowest domain score for Child Abuse and Neglect was ‘Hospital Physical Environment’ (mean-25). 48% of hospitals had an identified Partner Abuse coordinator; and 56% had a Child Abuse coordinator (this could be a shared position). Programmes were not in existence in some hospitals at the time of audit: 40% for partner abuse and 16% for child abuse. For programmes in place, they were more established for child abuse. Over half (56%) of the hospitals, child abuse programmes had been in place for at least 2 years. In contrast, only 8% of hospitals had a Partner Abuse programme for 2 or more years. Most hospitals were in the early stages of developing a system response to partner violence at the time of audit. The lowest domain scores were for ‘screening and safety assessment’, ‘evaluation activities’, ‘hospital physical environment’ and ‘documentation’. | en |
| dc.date.entered | 2006-01-25 | en |
| dc.description.physicaldescription | A4; 74 p. | en |
| Appears in Collections: | Reports | |
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.