Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe argument is made for having a positive error culture in child protection to improve decision‐making and risk management. This requires organizations to accept that mistakes are likely and to treat them as opportunities for learning and improving. In contrast, in many organizations, a punitive reaction to errors leads to workers hiding them and developing a defensive approach to their practice with children and families. The safety management literature has shown how human error is generally not simply due to a "bad apple" but made more or less likely by the work context that helps or hinders good performance. Improving safety requires learning about the weaknesses in the organization that contribute to poor performance. To create a learning culture, people need to feel that when they talk about mistakes or weak practice, there will be a constructive response from their organization. One aspect of reducing the blame culture is to develop a shared understanding of how practice will be judged and how those appraising practice will avoid the hindsight bias. To facilitate a positive error culture, a set of risk principles are presented that offer a set of criteria by which practice should be appraised.

Public sector services have been reshaped by two interacting factors: the growing dominance of risk management and the growing demands for transparency and accountability. For the caring professions, these have provoked radical reform. Using the child protection service as a case study, this article explores the impact of the changes on a service that deals with conflicting risks and has a poorly articulated knowledge base. Drawing on Rothstein et al.'s distinction between societal and institutional risks, it is argued that difficulties in managing societal risks are creating serious institutional risks. The latter are then being prioritized in the way the system operates. The preoccupation with such risks has been translated into concerted efforts to formalize the work of front line practitioners to make it transparent and auditable. Although done, in part, with the good intention of spreading good practice standards, this formalization has gone beyond the evidenced knowledge base to the extent that it is creating a new picture of "good practice" that omits significant dimensions of work and is distinct from measures of children's safety or welfare. Moreover, the process of formalization acts as an impediment to knowledge development in disciplines where such learning is urgently needed.