Professions show different enquiry strategies for elder abuse detection: Implications for training and interprofessional care

Abstract

In a project to develop and validate a tool to assist family physicians' identification of elder abuse, nine prospective questions underwent critique and ranking in focus groups comprised of 31 social workers, doctors, and nurses working with elder abuse. Differing attitudes to the questions were discernible amongst the three professions. The social workers' approach appeared based on need to advocate for clients. Nurses' viewpoints seemed influenced by utilitarian concerns for practicality and directness, desire to respect doctors' time constraints, and discomfort that some physicians' questioning might impose on nursing fields of interest. Physicians' concerns tended to be holistic, tempered by practicality and time management issues. However despite such differences expressed during lengthy group discussions, members of all three professions, when asked to independently rank the top five questions, favorably ranked the same five (though not necessarily in the same order). Since there are known barriers to successful elder abuse enquiry the differences and concerns seen in this study may represent another potential obstacle. Programs that address elder abuse might therefore consider sensitizing trainees to the potential predispositions within their own and their colleagues' professions. This proactive strategy might facilitate interprofessional approaches to elder abuse detection.

Keywords:

• Elder abuse
• detection
• interprofessional
• professional development

Acknowledgements

Appreciation is expressed to Dr Elizabeth Podnieks for help in the preparation of the grant submission and to Ms Silvia Straka for assistance in planning the focus groups. The corresponding author affirms that all those who contributed integrally to this project are recognized as authors, while those acknowledged in this section have provided prior written approval.

Conflict of interest: This study was funded by a grant (MOP-57847) from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The authors indicate no conflict of interest and they did not receive any external financial support for their activities on this project.