SPECIAL TOPIC:
Organ donation / Child Safe Standards
Child Wellbeing and Child Protection Policies and Procedures for NSW Health
Responding to child wellbeing and child protection concerns for all staff
Child Protection Counselling Services Policy and Procedures
Child Protection – Responding to Child Abuse and Neglect Emergency Departments and Paediatric Wards
Hill, M. K., et al. (2011). "Consensus standards for the care of children and adolescents in Australian health services." Medical Journal of Australia 194(2): 78-82 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2011.tb04172.x
Abstract The medical and psychosocial needs of children and adolescents differ from those of adults, and this should be reflected in the care they receive in all areas of a health service. Children and adolescents must be accommodated separately to adults to ensure that their unique needs are met and risks of harm are minimised. The Standards for the care of children and adolescents in health services have been developed by a working group of clinicians, health service providers and consumer advocates based on a combination of available research evidence, published best practice guidelines and multidisciplinary expert consensus. Stakeholder input was obtained through invitations to comment, and pilot testing of the Standards was conducted in six metropolitan, regional and rural hospitals. The Standards provide detailed recommendations in the areas of recognising rights; the provision of child-, adolescent- and family-friendly health service facilities; the availability of child- and adolescent-specific equipment; and the importance of appropriately trained staff. To facilitate implementation and allow ongoing performance monitoring, the Standards have been developed for use alongside the Australian Council on Healthcare Standards Evaluation and Quality Improvement Program. The Standards provide a vehicle to ensure patient safety and to facilitate the provision of high-quality care for children and adolescents in Australian health services.
Powell, M. A., et al. (2020). "Child safety in policy: Who is being kept safe and from what?" Social Policy & Administration 54(7): 1160-1178 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/spol.12591 REQUEST ARTICLE
Abstract Keeping children safe from harm is a national policy priority in Australia. Extensive inquiries and reviews have highlighted institutions' persistent failures to respond ethically and appropriately to child abuse and its life-long impacts on survivors. Policy efforts now reflect considerable emphasis on safeguarding children, including through the development of ‘child safe’ organisations. The realisation of these policy aspirations requires close attention to how ‘child safe’ is conceptualised and operationalised in different organisational contexts. Drawing on an analysis of policy in Australia and other international jurisdictions, namely New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Ireland, this article engages critically with the notion of ‘child safe’ in policy, to explore who is to be safe, from what and how, in organisational settings. The findings suggest emergent discourses of ‘child safe’ are bound up with particular constructions of both children and safety, reflect current social and political understandings and agendas, and have implications for organisations' approaches to safety. Ensuring the safety of children in Australia and other jurisdictions requires continuing scrutiny of policy implementation to make sure current policy efforts are not reduced to compliance-based imperatives that protect organisations, but fail to create the cultural conditions that enhance children's wellbeing and safety.
Powell, M. A., et al. (2021). "Children and safety in Australian policy: Implications for organisations and practitioners." Australian Journal of Social Issues 56(1): 17-41 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajs4.134 PDF AT LINK
Abstract Child safety is now a national policy priority in Australia. Extensive enquiries and reviews have escalated legislative and policy responses focused on developing, maintaining and monitoring “child safe” organisations. The recommendations of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse point to the importance of cultural conditions within organisations in supporting child safety and the need for responsive change in some organisations. Drawing on a recent policy analysis, undertaken as part of a larger Australian Research Council Discovery Project, this article examines how children and safety are constructed, within and across relevant state and federal government policies in Australia, and the implications of this. Distinctions are drawn between conceptualisations of children within the broader education policy context and two specific policy contexts in which children are considered particularly vulnerable to abuse – out-of-home care and disability. The findings indicate that policy discourses of “child safe” potentially foster different emphases and approaches in organisations. These have implications for the way children are positioned in relation to their safety, how their rights are recognised and implemented, and what is required to foster cultural conditions within organisations to best support children’s safety and wellbeing.
Winkworth, G. and M. White (2011). "Australia's Children ‘Safe and Well’? Collaborating with Purpose Across Commonwealth Family Relationship and State Child Protection Systems." Australian Journal of Public Administration 70(1): 1-14 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2010.00706.x
So ubiquitous is reference to collaboration in policy documents that it is in danger of being ignored altogether by service deliverers who are not clear about its rationale, how it is built, or its real value. This is evident in the child and family services context where for example the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children calls for collaboration and a ‘shared responsibility’ across the state, Commonwealth and the non-government sectors to keep children safe and well. This article describes a project undertaken to analyse and ultimately increase levels of collaboration between state and Commonwealth government family service providers. The research reinforced an important message that levels of collaboration should align with the vulnerability of children and their families: the greater the level of risks to children, the greater the level of collaboration needed within and between systems to keep children safe.
Bollen, J., et al. (2023). "Feasibility of organ donation following voluntary assisted dying in Australia: lessons from international practice."
https://www.mja.com.au/system/files/issues/219_05/mja252016.pdf PDF AT LINK
Cairnes, S., et al. (2021). "The views of first nations people, including first nations Australians, on organ donation: A multi-national perspective." Transplant Journal of Australasia 30(1): 7-12 https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.790410658933635
The number of people waiting for a transplant far outweighs the number of organ donors in Australia. The Northern Territory (NT) of Australia has the highest incidence of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) in Australia. A large proportion of those with ESKD are First Nations Australians that require renal dialysis and who are more likely to require and benefit from a renal transplant. In 2018, 53% (21/40) of potential organ donors referred to DonateLife NT identified as First Nations Australian; one of these went on to become an organ donor. DonateLife NT coordinates all organ donation activities across the NT and is responsible for increasing community awareness, promoting the importance of organ donation, and discussing willingness to be an organ donor with families. During these activities with First Nations Australians, a variety of views that influence thoughts and decision making about organ donation have become very apparent. To explore this further, a literature review was undertaken to determine the views on organ donation among First Nations People and consider how this compared to the anecdotal experience of DonateLife NT. Findings from the literature review are consistent with the experience of DonateLife NT. To optimise dialogue about organ donation with First Nations People, it must be conducted in a respectful and culturally appropriate way. This serves to empower through enhancing knowledge and understanding and enables the ability to make informed decisions. Further qualitative research is recommended to increase understanding of the views of First Nations Australians about organ donation and ultimately ensure that donation discussions are appropriately informed, culturally secure, and form part of quality end of life care in hospital settings.
Hyde, M. K., et al. (2021). "Australian Perspectives on Opt-In and Opt-Out Consent Systems for Deceased Organ Donation." Progress in Transplantation 31(4): 357-367 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/15269248211046023 REQUEST ARTICLE
Introduction: As many countries change to opt-out systems to address organ shortages, calls for similar reform in Australia persist. Community perspectives on consent systems for donation remain under-researched, therefore Australian perspectives on consent systems and their effectiveness in increasing donation rates were explored. Design: In this descriptive cross-sectional study, participants completed a survey presenting opt-in, soft opt-out, and hard opt-out systems, with corresponding descriptions. Participants chose the system they perceived as most effective and described their reasoning. Results: Participants (N = 509) designated soft opt-out as the most effective system (52.3%; hard opt-out 33.7%; opt-in 13.7%). Those who identified with an ethnic/cultural group or were not registered had greater odds of choosing opt-out. Six themes identified in thematic analysis reflected their reasoning: (1) who decides (individual, shared decision with family); (2) right to choose; (3) acceptability (ethics, fairness); and utility in overcoming barriers for (4) individuals (apathy, awareness, ease of donating, fear/avoidance of death); (5) family (easier family experience, family veto); (6) society (normalizing donation, donation as default, expanding donor pool). Choice and overcoming individual barriers were more frequently endorsed themes for opt-in and opt-out, respectively. Discussion: Results suggested the following insights regarding system effectiveness: uphold/prioritize individual's recorded donation decision above family wishes; involve family in decision making if no donation preference is recorded; retain a register enabling opt-in and opt-out for unequivocal decisions and promoting individual control; and maximize ease of registering. Future research should establish whether systems considered effective are also acceptable to the community to address organ shortages.
Jenkin, R. A., et al. (2023). "Altruism in death: Attitudes to body and organ donation in Australian students." Anatomical Sciences Education 16(1): 27-46 https://anatomypubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ase.2180 PDF AT LINK
Abstract Health education, research, and training rely on the altruistic act of body donation for the supply of cadavers. Organ transplantation and research rely on donated organs. Supply of both is limited, with further restrictions in Australia due to requirements for a next-of-kin agreement to donation, irrespective of the deceased's pre-death consent. Research suggests health workers are less likely to support the donation of their own bodies and/or organs, despite recognizing the public good of donation, and that exposure to gross anatomy teaching may negatively affect support for donation. Attitudes to body and organ donation were examined in Australian students studying anatomy. Support for self-body donation (26.5%) was much lower than support for self-organ donation (82.5%). Ten percent of participants would not support the election of a family member or member of the public to donate their body, and just over 4% would not support the election of a family member to donate their organs, with one-to-two percent not supporting this election by a member of the public. Exposure to gross anatomy teaching was associated with an increased likelihood of consideration of issues about body and organ donation, whether for self, family, or the public, and registration as an organ donor. Exposure decreased participants' willingness to donate their own body, with those who practiced a religion least likely to support body donation. Gross anatomy courses provide an opportunity to inform future healthcare workers about altruistic donation, albeit with a recognition that religious or cultural beliefs may affect willingness to donate.
Moloney, G., et al. (2022). "Respect, interaction, immediacy and the role community plays in registering an organ donation decision." PLoS One 17(1): e0263096 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263096 FULL TEXT AT LINK
Background Registering a donation decision is fundamental to increasing the number of people who donate the organs and tissues essential for transplantation, but the number of registered organ donors is insufficient to meet this demand. Most people in Australia support organ donation, but only a third have registered their decision on the Australian Organ Donor Register (AODR). We addressed this paradox by investigating how feelings of community, engendered through an ethic of hospitality and care and a non-proselytizing dialogue about organ donation, facilitated the decision to register. Methods An Immediate Registration Opportunity was set up in a large public hospital in NSW, Australia. The public was approached and invited to engage in an open, respectful dialogic interaction that met people where their beliefs were and allowed their concerns and fears about donation to be discussed. This included a survey that measured positive and negative beliefs about organ donation, mood, atmosphere, and feelings of community coupled with an on-the-spot opportunity to register their donation decision. Results Over four days, we interacted with 357 participants; 75.5% (210) of eligible-to-register participants registered on the AODR. Generalized Structural Equation Modelling highlighted that as connection to community increased, so did the salience of positive beliefs about organ donation. Positive beliefs, in turn, were negatively correlated with negative beliefs about donation and, as the strength of negative beliefs decreased, the probability of registration on the AODR increased. Participants who registered on the AODR reported stronger connection to the broader community than participants who did not register. Conclusion A respectful non-judgmental interaction that allows beliefs and concerns about organ donation to be discussed, coupled with an immediate opportunity to register, encouraged registration. Within this framework, feelings of belonging to a community were a key determinant that enabled many to make the decision to register.