Evaluating the Graded Care Profile 2: Comparisons with the Original Tool and Factors Affecting Uptake and Use of the Updated Tool.

Previous research on the original Graded Care Profile, widely used in assessments of child neglect, found that it helped practitioners make more objective, evidence‐based decisions where neglect was suspected. However, the tool was also criticised for being too long and not very user‐friendly. Subsequently, the tool was revised, updated and renamed the 'Graded Care Profile 2' (GCP2). The NSPCC supported the implementation of this tool in 65 local authorities. This article reports on an evaluation of the GCP2 conducted by the NSPCC, involving surveys and interviews with a range of participants trained to use the tool or involved in its implementation. The evaluation aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to using the tool, and to observe whether changes made to the original tool had helped. 'This article reports on an evaluation of the GCP2 conducted by the NSPCC' Participants were positive about the GCP2, which some interviewees said was a huge improvement on the original tool. They felt that it increased their confidence to identify neglect and make referrals which were more likely to have an impact, because interviewees felt that it produced clear evidence which held weight within the child protection field. There were reservations about aspects of the tool and, although the roll‐out appeared successful overall, use of the tool was fairly limited eight to ten months following training. Key Practitioner Messages: The GCP2 was viewed as more accessible, attractive and user‐friendly than the original tool. There were some concerns about aspects of the tool, such as its length.Practitioners who used the tool felt that it improved their confidence to identify neglect and helped them make referrals which were more likely to have an impact.The majority of local authorities initially involved in rolling out the GCP2 were still engaged and using the GCP2. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Child Abuse Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)