72 Adult Safeguarding, Abuse of Vulnerable Adults and Mandatory Reporting: A Rapid Realist Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The continuing evolution of adult safeguarding legislation, policy and practice in relation to the abuse of vulnerable adults reflects a growing awareness of the nature and extent of such abuse in Ireland. The Adult Safeguarding Bill, 2017 represents a progressive step in safeguarding older people and vulnerable adults. The intention of the Bill is to put in place additional protections for adults, in particular, for those who may be unable to protect themselves, such as older people or those lacking capacity. Part 3 provides for mandatory reporting by specified/named persons/professionals. This paper sets out to critically analyse the concept of mandatory reporting within adult safeguarding using international comparators as case studies. Methods A rapid realist review of adult safeguarding reporting typologies and systems in five key jurisdictions: Australia, Canada, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland, were explored to answer the question: ‘what works, for whom and in what circumstances?’ [1] Results Jurisdictions differ as to who the mandated reporters are, the scope and powers of mandatory reporting, and the types of abuse subject to reporting. Of significance is that the debate on mandatory reporting has increasingly focused on institutional settings, rather than more broadly across services. Key concepts identified are those of protection, empowerment and proportionality. Adult safeguarding legislation must therefore ensure that interventionist and compulsory measures to protect do not excessively restrict the rights of the individual. Conclusion Mandatory reporting may offer professionals increased powers to prevent and reduce the abuse of adults and older people, but this could also change the dynamic of relationships within families, and between families and professionals. Ultimately, the success of any legal approach will rest with professional judgment in balancing autonomy with protection.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".