Search

Historically providing specialized advocacy training to Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists (CAP) beyond traditional medical education has been ambiguous at best. This is alarming particularly in light of the National Emergency in Child and Adolescent Mental Health and the increasing concern about health inequities resulting from social determinants of health (SDH). While Graduate Medical Education (GME) programs are adopting advocacy curricula, the authors argue that the shortage of trained CAPs and the growing need for advocacy makes it essential to focus on advocacy training that targets patients, organizations, or entire populations. The authors performed a systematic literature review across all medical specialties, highlighting the inadequacy of current advocacy training for CAPs, particularly in comparison to pediatrics, and the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirements. The article suggests that advocacy training should be more emphasized in CAP training to address health inequities and promote better outcomes for children and adolescents. The training focused on medical-legal partnerships (MLP) is particularly crucial in addressing the social causes of health disparities and addressing unmet needs such as food, housing, and income that drive disparities, especially amongst vulnerable populations. The article concludes that providing an informed and evidence-based representation of current practices and methodologies used to train residents around advocacy is essential to ensure that CAPs are prepared to advocate for their patients and address health disparities resulting from SDH. Given the growing demand for mental health services and the unprecedented need for advocacy, specialized training for CAPs can no longer be ignored., (Copyright © 2023 American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

All American jurisdictions have laws protecting children from abuse and neglect. Mandated reporters, including health professionals, whether their suspicions ultimately are substantiated or unfounded, are entitled to immunity when their reports are entered in good faith. When harm takes the form of medical child abuse (MCA, also known as Munchausen syndrome by proxy or factitious disorder imposed on another), its origin is ambiguous, at least initially. Questions arise as to whether the caregiver intended to deceive medical professionals and if the condition improved when the child was separated from the caregiver. Clinicians may have an obligation to report MCA in difficult-to-diagnose cases or those where parents press for hospitalizations and procedures. Substantiated cases may lead to removal of children from homes and criminal prosecution of parents. This can result in backlash against the reporter by the parents, with claims of malpractice, official misconduct, intentional harm, fraud or conspiracy to commit fraud, defamation (libel or slander), or all of the above. This article examines case law regarding alleged departures from good-faith reporting of MCA and explores potential limitations to immunity provided to mandated reporters. The findings include no significant instances in which the immunity shield for good-faith reporting was pierced., (© 2022 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.)