From: Implementation of Child Death Review in the Netherlands: results of a pilot study
Strengths | Weaknesses |
People • CDR coordinator - contributed to the inclusion of cases • Chair - forensic and pediatric expertise - supported in writing the chronological report • Team - multidisciplinary approach - made proposals and recommendations directed at the intake and analysis of cases - reached consensus to refine the CDR procedure Means • Materials to inform parents and professionals (leaflet for parents, consent form, SERRAFIM website) • Materials to review a case (DVD ‘Why Jason died’, CDR protocol, confidentiality agreement, document with rules for an efficient meeting, intake and analysis form, recording equipment) Finance • Fee for chair and CDR team members • Reimbursement of travel expenses | People • CDR coordinator - could not complete the process to get parental consent in 2 cases in time - failed once to send the documents for the CDR meeting in time - has insufficient expertise to select relevant information from the medical record of the deceased child • Chair and CDR team members - voluntariness of participation • CDR team - limited experience Means • Lack of essential information from professionals and parents • Illogical ranking of items on the intake and analysis forms • Lack of a clear description how to define the primary and secondary cause of death and the way a death should be classified Finance • Insufficient financial resources for the CDR coordinator |
Opportunities | Threats |
Political factors • Added value to the legally prescribed NODO-procedure • National attention of the topic ‘child death’ • Providing a source of information for professionals, parents and others Social factors • The objectives of the CDR promoted participation Environmental factors • Collaboration with the National Cot Death Study Group • Reduction of the effort for parents in providing information • Highlighting positive experiences • Presenting at conferences or meetings and publishing in national magazines • Making use of experiences with conducting reviews nationally and in the UK Legal factors • Cooperation of the Public Prosecutor • Signed consent form to obtain information | Political factors • The influence of the NODO-procedure on the inclusion of cases Social factors • Personal reasons of parents and professionals for not participating Environmental factors • Influence of the Dutch Healthcare Authority on the participation of health care professionals in the CDR team Legal factors • Lack of statutory basis |