Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law logoLink to Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law
. 2021 Nov 23;29(6):889–899. doi: 10.1080/13218719.2021.1995520

Professionals’ perceptions of a multi-agency computerised data sharing system

Martine B Powell 1,✉, Sharon Casey 1
PMCID: PMC9578457  PMID: 36267599

Abstract

We examined the perceptions of multi-agency child abuse investigation professionals following the implementation of an independent computerised data linkage system for case tracking purposes. Semi-structured interviews (N = 30) were conducted with child protection workers and police officers, from both frontline and managerial roles, to explore their experiences in adapting to the new technology. Interview transcripts were coded and analysed using thematic analysis, focusing on the semantic meaning of the data. Four multifaceted themes were generated, of which three (understanding the rationale for change; system implementation and its limitations; and the role of technology within the organisational structure) showed strong divergence between frontline workers and management. While executives highlighted the benefits of the new system, frontline workers (overall) held a negative view about the system’s usefulness and impact on workload. The implications of the findings are discussed.

Key words: case tracking, child abuse investigation, data linkage, inter-agency collaboration

Professionals who investigate child abuse rely on strong skills in inter-agency collaboration, because the information required to make workplace decisions often comes from inter-disciplinary professionals (e.g. health practitioners, police officers, child protection workers). Joint investigation and co-delivery of services across agencies, for example, are essential for timely and effective responses related to the protection and care needs of children and families. Strong inter-agency collaboration facilitates interdependent problem solving, reduces the likelihood of the complainant receiving conflicting information, fosters positive relationships between the different decision-makers (thus reducing work-related stress) and enhances professional knowledge and skill sets by expanding professional expertise (Crawford & L’Hoiry, 2017; Rees, 2020).

The central plank of good inter-agency collaboration in child protection practice is information sharing about individual cases (Munro, 2019; Richardson & Asthana, 2006; Stanley et al., 2011). Several evaluations and reviews have highlighted the importance of efficient information sharing to facilitate multi-agency decision making and reduce unnecessary system duplication when eliciting information from complainants and their families (Keeley et al., 2015; Munro, 2019). Information sharing is now standard practice in multi-agency service delivery; however, it is not without its challenges. Legal and ethical issues need to be considered to protect complainants’ right to privacy (Adams & Lee-Jones, 2017). While policy frameworks can address these issues (Keeley et al., 2015), they do not always run as planned due to risk-averse cultures (Adams & Lee-Jones, 2017; Munro, 2019), inconsistent application of confidentiality (Bellamy et al., 2008) and confidentiality being given precedence over other case considerations (Keeley et al., 2015). Information exchange can also be hampered by systemic issues including difficulty building relationships across organisations or establishing shared boundaries (Nash & Walker, 2009; Stanley et al., 2011). Incompatible information systems and processes for accessing information is also a commonly-reported challenge (Crawford & L’Hoiry, 2017).

There are several distinct forms of information sharing, each with its own set of benefits and challenges. For example, case details can be shared via verbal discussions between professionals (e.g. case conferencing, strategy meetings). Such forms of communication encourage reflection but are more applicable to case reviews as access to information is time restricted. Case information can be shared electronically through access to stored data systems, such as when members of organisations are given access to one another’s case files and data systems to elicit or input information. When multiple users access data from across organisations through linkage of systems, several problems can arise including systematic bias, inefficiencies in the quality of data elicited (due to the different content, signifiers and types of information stored) and systems being subject to manual error in inputting information (Neave et al., 2016). For example, when a person from one agency mistakenly adds an incorrect date of birth or misspells a client’s name, such errors can impact decision making because a worker (when searching for case information) may be led to believe that linked data do not exist (Masson et al., 2020).

Independent data systems

Another viable option for sharing case information, which can potentially overcome some limitations of linked systems, is to develop an independent shared data system that sits outside each organisation’s independent databases. The single cross-organisation database becomes a repository for all case-related data (pre-determined to be of importance), which is accessible to all collaborating agencies. With this system, agency members take responsibility for entering the data into the shared system, and they have the capacity to view and retrieve necessary data inserted by other organisations. Because the database being accessed is more targeted and contained (usually purpose-built for a specific need), this approach is more efficient than linking systems and is better for public privacy because only relevant information for a given purpose is captured in the shared database. Independent shared data systems are particularly helpful for tracking the progress of large cohorts of cases with a view to understanding how well a system is operating as a whole (i.e. where and for which types of complainants the system breaks down). The usefulness of any specific data system, however, relies on staff compliance in ensuring that the data entered are complete, up to date and as free as possible from administrative error (Leach et al., 2015).

As case tracking and the use of independent shared data systems become more widespread across the globe, organisations would benefit from evaluative research that explores the challenges that staff have implementing these new systems and how the process could be improved. To date, there is little research examining the perspectives of the users responsible for administering these systems. The literature has tended to focus on legislative requirements, the use of memorandums of agreement, technological requirements and the politics of organisational change (Bailey et al., 2017). Although worker perspectives cannot establish the efficacy that a particular programme or policy has on hard outcome indicators, they are essential for understanding how the information sharing process is actually being implemented, the factors that constrain or enable the system to be effective and how the system (on a practical administrative level) can be improved. Social policy literature is replete with examples of implementation gaps at the point of service delivery, with worker practice typically shaping policy and case outcomes, often with consequences that are unforeseen by policy developers (Hill & Hupe, 2002).

When evaluating the challenges of implementing any new data management system, one needs to consider the nature and consistency of any concerns, both within and across cohorts of workers from individual organisations (Charman, 2014; Rees, 2020). Elaborate perspectives from multiple different stakeholders are necessary because cultural differences and professional gatekeeping can lead to concerns about differential power relations and because disagreements may arise among staff around problem definitions, the prioritising of actions and preventative solutions and role demarcation that accompany change (Brown et al., 2000; Phillips, 2002). These sorts of factors can undermine staff willingness to engage with any newly introduced system and comply with operational procedures (Gillingham, 2017).

Organisational behaviours, beliefs, professional practices and ethics also impact adherence to and the utility of information sharing (Rees, 2020). For example, in her examination of the street work of law enforcement and ambulance workers, Charman (2014) found that communication extended beyond shared language to knowledge and appreciation of the other’s rituals, values, beliefs and/or paradigms, which in turn strengthened inter-agency bonds and facilitated a shift from multi- to inter-agency collaboration (i.e. from working in parallel to achieve common goals to team integration). Rees (2020) extended Charman’s work, demonstrating how the key elements of inter-agency collaboration described by Charman (e.g. co-location, regular interactions and communications) facilitated both collaboration and an understanding of the others’ tasks and practices, shared goals (joint enterprise) and respect for the others’ skills. Dynamics, however, differed at the agency and interpersonal level. Rees noted that challenges experienced during the change process could differ for those working on the frontline compared to those further up the organisational hierarchy. This prior research highlights the importance of evaluations seeking anonymous feedback from people at various levels within and across organisations.

Current study

Data sharing is an essential component of effective inter-agency collaboration; however, little is currently known about the challenges of implementing various new systems from a user perspective, and how challenges can be overcome. The current study addressed this limitation by seeking the perspectives of both front-line workers and senior management within two (anonymous) organisations. Employees were interviewed about the introduction of the new independent shared data system, which was created to improve the efficiency with which referred child abuse cases are managed and tracked. Our aim was to understand what challenges were experienced with the new system and whether these challenges were particular to any sub-groups within the organisation, and to provide recommendations for how the implementation of new independent shared data systems could be improved.

Method

Contextual factors related to the database

The child protection database was introduced by the organisations in response to growing international recognition regarding the importance of streamlined inter-agency child abuse service delivery (see Masson et al., 2020). System evaluations (both locally and on a broader scale), which were initiated by concerns of high attrition and low prosecution rates for child sexual assault cases, revealed the need for greater efficiency and precision in record retrieval regarding the progression of individual cases. A coordinated response to child abuse, underpinned by good communication and exchange of significant case factors and the actions taken by various professionals, was deemed fundamental to enhancing child protection case management. Linking information across organisations, however, had historically been difficult because each individual organisation data system was driven by their unique business needs, contained many identification codes that were not meaningful outside the organisation, and did not necessarily reflect the best information for identifying trends in reporting of offences needed to understand how the system as a whole was operating. Further, the way in which information was stored in some of the organisations (i.e. use of manual spreadsheets) did not allow computer programs to readily extract and manipulate required information.

The combined database that was eventually created (with extensive input from all participating organisations spanning over a year) captured both demographic information on the cases and stages of case tracking via input of the agencies. Once a case was created in the system by the intake team, professionals could simultaneously access the database from their workstation and update the case with further information as it progressed through the system. At the time of data collection, the database had been operating for six months. While it was still in the early stages of implementation, and thus the current study could only elicit feedback from two of the service providers, the intention was that it would eventually include input from all organisations concerned with investigation and prosecution of the case and ensuring the safety of the child (i.e. prosecution, health, child witness services as well as child protection and police). Importantly, the new database was not developed to replace existing organisational information capturing applications but rather as a purpose-specific programme allowing visibility and tracking of cases across agencies.

Participants

Participants included 30 personnel (8 males and 22 females). Thirteen of the participants were child protection workers: eight frontline case workers and five more senior workers who took a staff supervisory rather than direct case managerial role. The remainder of the participants worked in law enforcement; eight were responsible for face-to-face engagement with complainants of abuse while the remaining nine were in supervisory or managerial roles. At the time of interview, participants reported working in their current role between five months and six years (average of 3.3 years). No other demographic details are provided to ensure anonymity.

Procedure

The research was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines set down by the University’s and partner organisations’ Human Research Ethics Committees. Following ethical approval, an executive from each agency was sent an email regarding the study, who then forwarded details of the study, which included details regarding the aims and purpose of the study, to all eligible staff on behalf of the research team. Staff wishing to participate were asked to contact the research administrator to organise a suitable time and location to meet. The rate of participation was approximately 70% (most of the remainder of invited participants declined because the time frame for the interviews was not compatible with their work schedules). At the time of making the interview appointments and again prior to interviews, all participants were informed that their engagement was voluntary and anonymous, and that they could withdraw at any time without adverse consequences.

Prior to commencement of the interview, participants signed a consent form including permission for the interview to be digitally recorded. To meet work scheduling demands (particularly for frontline workers), it was necessary to interview almost two thirds of participants (n = 19; 63.33%) in a group format (1 × n = 5; 2 × n = 3; and 4 × n = 2). The mean interview time was 48 min (SD = 64.66, Mdn = 27.37) and ranged from 8.62 to 240.65 min. The majority of shorter interviews involved senior-level police officers whose role did not extend to ‘hands on’ data entry but, rather, access for larger scale reporting purposes. Multi-participant interviews tended to be longer, notably one involving five frontline workers (203.83 min).

Interviews were transcribed professionally and returned in a de-identified format. Although the participants cannot be considered representative of all persons engaged in child abuse investigation, the sample is appropriate for qualitative research (Gray, 2017). All participants had experience in relation to the independent data linkage system and were thus able to provide feedback for this evaluation. Where necessary, grammatical modifications have been made to quotes to improve readability.

Data collection and analysis

Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore participants’ experience of the independent shared data system with which they had been working. Each interview began with a question about the participants’ role within their organisation. There was a simultaneous focus on the topics required to address the research questions while ensuring that the interviews were participant driven (Cresswell & Cresswell, 2018). An interview schedule was developed that enabled the interviewer to define the topic while at the same time allowing for flexibility in responding (Willig, 2013) and ensuring that answers were made in a manner relevant to each participant’s own experience (see Wolgemuth et al., 2015). Questions were directed towards issues such as database utility, impact on workload and productivity, ease of use, and strengths and limitations of the database.

Braun and Clarke’s (2006, 2012) approach to thematic analysis was deemed the most suitable method for data analysis. The inherent theoretical flexibility of thematic analysis allowed for a social constructionist framework (Boyland, 2019) with a focus on the semantic meaning of the data. After downloading the transcribed interviews into Microsoft Word, the second author adopted the iterative, six-phase process recommended by Braun and Clarke (2006). This included data immersion with the reading and re-reading of transcripts to become familiar with content and note initial analytic observations (Phase 1); systematic data coding and generation of initial codes (units of meaning; Phase 2); inductive development of broader patterns of meaning (‘candidate themes’) based on word groups (Phase 3); reviewing and refining themes to ensure relevance of text allocated to each theme (Phase 4); generation of theme names to identify the ‘essence’ of each and determine that data had been captured in the themes (Phase 5); and integrating themes into an analytic narrative of participants’ experiences and reporting findings in the present paper (Phase 6).

Results

Key themes

Four multi-faceted themes were generated by the authors after reflecting on the participants’ responses. These themes included: understanding the rationale for change; the need for competent and relevant training; system implementation and its limitations; and the role of technology within the organisational structure. Although an aim of the study was to determine how the new system would impact on the four sub-groups interviewed, no clear differences were apparent between the two frontline groups nor between the two manager groups; what we had were stories of frontline workers and those of managers, irrespective of organisation. This outcome is a reflection of organisational hierarchy, a situation shown to be problematic and to engender resistance to collaborative endeavours (Rees, 2020; Rodriquez, 2015). The focus of the themes, therefore, is on whether the participant is frontline worker or manager. These themes are presented sequentially and developed with illustrative extracts from the data that have been corrected for grammar (Connelly & Peltzer, 2016).

Understanding the rationale for change

Almost half the participants referred to case tracking as the main purpose for introducing the new data system. Their perception was that each agency would have access to a system where they could see (on a continuum) the progress of service for a specific client from the point of intake right through to completion of the matter including prosecution. At any point, employees could see where a case fell out of the system and the likely causation factors. The majority of people who referred to case tracking as the reason for implementation, however, were in supervisory or executive positions. Only three of the 16 frontline workers (i.e. those who had direct face-to-face involvement with clients) reported case tracking as the reason for database implementation. The remainder perceived that the specificity of detail being recorded on the database (e.g. meeting times, files allocated to staff and whether there were successful disclosures) indicated to them that the purpose was to scrutinise staff performance against key performance indicators.

 . . . the system was introduced more for managerial purposes, for time management and staffing levels . . . to show how much work’s been done. [Frontline]

It was not clear whether staff had this concern all along (i.e. when the new data sharing system was introduced), or whether their views developed over time following interactions with peers, as a result of inter-agency collaboration or through use of the new system. Interestingly, some managers echoed that the data were useful in showing timeliness of responses, but that this was secondary to assessing case attrition, and that staff scrutiny was just as relevant in assessing their own performance (in staff management) as that of frontline workers.

The need for competent and relevant training

Half the participants mentioned the importance of software training, with most united in their views that they were not adequately prepared for the new computerised data sharing system. Those who were more confident with digital technology reported minimal difficulty. Others had considerable difficulty adapting, which meant the new system was being used incorrectly:

Someone just sat down and said that’s what you do. I think it’s been straightforward to be honest. [Frontline]

I didn’t receive any training on it. I just had one of the other interviewers show me how to put that basic data on and close it off. And so I don’t even think I know the capabilities of it. I go in, I do what I have to do and get out. And for a few months there I wasn’t pushing ‘completed’ . . . so I had about 20 that I had to go back in and complete at a later time because I didn’t know that hitting ‘completed’ was something I had to do. [Frontline]

If the information that was being put in there was useful and accurate, then I wouldn’t be as unhappy. Rather, the information that is being put in there – partly due to the lack of training – is so different depending on the individual that I question the data’s usefulness in the long term. [Frontline]

A few participants claimed they had been given training, but this had occurred prior to system implementation and, consequently, was too early to be of real benefit:

Training took place too early such that by the time [the database] went live, the process didn’t really make sense. Timeliness of the training is crucial. [The trainer] had to come back and sit with everybody again, which was a waste of time and money. [Frontline]

Difficulties adjusting to the new system and a reported lack of ongoing support or on-site assistance meant that a number of participants engaged in informal learning. The need for more support was voiced mainly by frontline staff, who seemed to have the highest levels of client contact and, therefore, a greater need to input and retrieve data.

System implementation and its limitations

Responses to questions around system implementation presented the greatest divergence within and between agency staff. Frontline workers voiced their concerns regarding the quality of data being entered onto the system and how this impacted data reliability and accuracy:

A database is only as good as the people that are putting in the data. It’s the nature of the job, and we haven’t got all the time in the world. Half of us have learnt to tick and flick when using computer programs that will only let you exit if you have ticked a box. [Frontline]

I couldn’t even tell you if my records [are accurate] or not because I don’t put any value to it. I do it because that’s part of my role, but I don’t check it to see. [Frontline]

A manager, on the other hand, presented the view that the data were reliable:

Having that kind of reassurance that . . . something is being done correctly, for me, makes life a lot easier. . . . Because if things slip through the net, not only am I culpable but [a complainant] may get hurt or die. [Manager]

Several frontline law enforcement officers did not see the value in having an independent data system containing the same information as that already entered into their main (organisation-centric) database.

What we are putting onto the [organisation database] is basically what we then have to put on to the [shared] database. We’re duplicating a lot of information really. [Frontline]

Some frontline staff reported that the drop-down menu (as opposed to more open responses) reduced the precision of the information reported.

You’ve got to tab through and select and when it only gives you one option you’ve still got to click on that one option to [select your response]. [Frontline]

Role of technology within the organisational structure

Differences between frontline workers and managerial staff were apparent with regards to the benefits of the new shared data system. There appeared to be a general lack of interest or investment in the new system among several frontline staff, as illustrated by the following response:

I don’t even fill out the times because everyone was telling me that the times aren’t [important] because there’s a glitch in the system. So it’s reliable in as much as this person was seen on this day. That’s it. [Frontline]

The above comment, however, contrasts with those of other frontline workers who seemed more willing to engage with the system but were concerned with the amount of data they were required to enter. One worker suggested there were differential workloads, with more data having to be entered by some workers depending on their organisation and the time they first came into contact with a case). The concern was that the extra work was not always taken into consideration when assigning workloads.

Irrespective of the above-mentioned concerns about reliability and workload, there was general acknowledgment that the new shared data system was important to all parties even if they were not directly involved in each process of the ‘data chain’:

I think we’re getting better at implementing things. Now that the system is up and running, staff are working with it quite well. I’m hoping they’ll start to see the benefits of it. When they can actually track cases and see the outcomes, they’ll be better connected to the whole process. [Manager]

There was also recognition of the need to actively work together, not only for the success of the new system but to enhance the effectiveness of inter-agency collaboration:

The key advantage is connectivity between the various agencies. It allows for a more robust tracking and recording system for specialised child abuse matters, which in turn benefits all organisations. [Manager]

Discussion

The main conclusion to draw from this evaluation is that successful implementation of any multi-agency computerised data sharing system would likely require investment in upfront training, staff IT support and independent scrutiny of the reliability of data. The qualitative interviews we conducted (all within six months after the introduction of the new system) revealed different perspectives of frontline workers and management with regard to usefulness, usability and integrity of the system. The executive (managers and supervisors) highlighted the benefits of the new system (e.g. to assist with case management and tracking), and they perceived it to be useful, user-friendly and working well. Frontline workers (both law enforcement and child protection staff), however, held quite a different view. Many were resistant to using the new system, claiming it was particularly burdensome, not fit-for-purpose, overly complex and more likely to meet the needs of senior managers as a way of monitoring staff performance (Gillingham, 2017; Tregeagle & Darcy, 2008).

The results reflect a paradox sometimes referred to in the literature with regards to new technology introduced to ease work pressures and enhance collaboration. In some cases, such technology can increase cognitive load and complexity of the job, particularly when staff are inadequately prepared for it and have minimal connection with organisational governance (Gillingham, 2013; Hollnagel & Woods, 2005). A stand-alone system, even one linked between agencies, can become an obstacle to inter-agency communication and information sharing if staff do not fully engage and merely mask compliance (Broadhurst et al., 2010; Foldy et al., 2014). Overall, management and frontline staff in this study seemed to be operating as separate entities, and thus attitudes related to the new system were reflective of individual sub-group (as opposed to common, shared workplace) values and beliefs (Comeau-Vallée & Langley, 2020). The divergence between management and frontline workers may be another instance where intra-professional relationships are not as strong as management would think.

It is unclear from the interviews whether the concerns of frontline workers were contained to the new system or whether they reflected broader systemic issues around inter-agency collaboration (Apesoa-Varano, 2013). Research investigating hierarchical concerns within institutions tends to focus on professional competition (Nugus et al., 2010; Rodriquez, 2015) or relinquishing autonomy (Currie et al., 2010); these factors were not readily apparent among our study participants. Neither frontline nor management staff, however, deferred to the skills of the other, which is a factor integral to establishment of strong collaboration and information sharing (Charman, 2014).

The success of any technology-based information sharing system depends on its users’ expertise in operating that system. If senior staff took the view that learning was happening on the job (e.g. staff sought help from colleagues through trouble-shooting and informal learning; Kerosuo & Engeström, 2003), this was not happening. There was a sense from the frontline workers that the new data system was ‘making simple tasks unnecessarily complex’ (Hollnagel & Woods, 2005, p. 37), resulting in inaccurate data entry. Yet management was of the view that frontline staff were engaged with the system, and any issues were being addressed. Interestingly, frontline workers perceived system complexity as resulting from the repetition of data entry across both the new and existing systems. Data entry and retrieval, however, were no more complex than the existing systems. That is, workers did not have to extract data and set it up; they simply had to transfer a ‘slice’ of data from their own organisation’s database into the new system so that all organisations could access data in one place, including data unique to each other’s systems.

A key limitation that needs to be acknowledged is that participants in this study were self-selected workers from a single location. The challenges faced may have been unique to the specific collaboration under investigation, the technology used or the implementation strategies used by the organisations. Nonetheless, there are four tentative recommendations we can make based on participant feedback and our review of the literature. First, if organisations are to operate within an effective inter-agency framework, any new system needs to be implemented with a clear rationale for all staff as to why the system is being introduced and its benefits to all agencies involved and the clients with whom they engage (e.g. Gillingham, 2017). Second, training needs to be provided immediately prior to the implementation of any new system, and it needs to be concrete and readily accessible on an ongoing basis through refreshers and manuals (see Leach et al., 2015). Third, the system should ideally be implemented with the support of a champion (i.e. ‘go to’ person) within each organisation who can provide expert face-to-face support (where necessary) and two-way feedback between management and frontline staff. Finally, staff may benefit from regular face-to-face inter-agency ‘community’ meetings to address new issues that arise related to the database and to discuss how problems will be resolved and whether the additional workload arising from the data entry has been sufficiently acknowledged in workloads (Keeley et al., 2015).

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the organisations who gave their time to conduct the interviews.

Ethical standards

Declaration of conflicts of interest

Martine B. Powell has declared no conflicts of interest.

Sharon Casey has declared no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Adams, C., & Lee-Jones, K. (2017). Sharing personal information in the child protection context: Impediments in the Australian legal framework. Child & Family Social Work, 22(4), 1349–1356. 10.1111/cfs.12352 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Apesoa-Varano, E. C. (2013). Interprofessional conflict and repair: A study of boundary work in the hospital. Sociological Perspectives, 56(3), 327–349. 10.1525/sop.2013.56.3.327 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bailey, C., Powell, M., & Baksheev, G. N. (2017). Evaluation of a database for tracking cases of child sexual abuse. Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law, 24(6), 951–957. 10.1080/13218719.2017.1327314 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bellamy, C.,   6.P., Raab, C., Warren, A., & Heeney, C. (2008). Information-sharing and confidentiality in social policy: Regulating multi-agency working. Public Administration, 86, 737–759. 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.00723.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Boyland, J. R. (2019). A social constructivist approach to the gathering of empirical data. Australian Counselling Research Journal, 13, 30–34. http://www.acrjournal.com.au/journal?id=18 [Google Scholar]
  6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V., (2012). Thematic analysis. In Cooper H., Camic P. M., Long D. L., Panter A. T., Rindskopf D., Sher K. J. (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, vol. 2: Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological, and biological (pp. 57–71). American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
  8. Broadhurst, K., Wastell, D., White, S., Hall, C., Peckover, S., Pithouse, A., Thompson, K., & Davey, D. (2010). Performing “initial assessment”: Identifying the latent conditions for error at the front-door of local authority children’s services. British Journal of Social Work, 40(2), 352–370. 10.1093/bjsw/bcn162 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Brown, B., Crawford, P., & Darongkamas, J. (2000). Blurred roles and permeable boundaries: The experience of multidisciplinary working in community mental health. Health & Social Care in the Community, 8(6), 425–435. 10.1046/j.1365-2524.2000.00268.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Charman, S. (2014). Blue light communities: Cultural interoperability and shared learning between ambulance staff and police officers in emergency response. Policing and Society, 24(1), 102–119. 10.1080/10439463.2013.784306 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Comeau-Vallée, M., & Langley, A. (2020). The interplay of inter- and intraprofessional boundary work in multidisciplinary teams. Organization Studies, 41(12), 1649–1672. 10.1177/0170840619848020 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Connelly, L. M., & Peltzer, J. N. (2016). Underdeveloped themes in qualitative research: Relationship with interviews and analysis. Clinical Nurse Specialist CNS, 30(1), 52–57. 10.1097/NUR.0000000000000173 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Crawford, A., & L’Hoiry, X. (2017). Boundary crossing: Networked policing and emergent ‘communities of practice’ in safeguarding children. Policing and Society, 27(6), 636–654. 10.1080/10439463.2017.1341508 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Cresswell, D. W., & Cresswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods design (5th ed.). SAGE Publications, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  15. Currie, G., Finn, R., & Martin, G. (2010). Role transition and the interaction of relational and social identity: New nursing roles in the english NHS. Organization Studies, 31(7), 941–961. 10.1177/0170840610373199 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Foldy, S., Grannis, S., Ross, D., & Smith, T. (2014). A ride in the time machine: Information management capabilities health departments will need. American Journal of Public Health, 104(9), 1592–1600. 10.2105/AJPH.2014.301956 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gillingham, P. (2013). The development of electronic information systems for the future: Practitioners, “embodied structures” and “technologies-in-practice. British Journal of Social Work, 43(3), 430–445. 10.1093/bjsw/bcr202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gillingham, P. (2017). Electronic information systems in human service organizations: Using theory to inform future design. International Social Work, 60(1), 100–110. 10.1177/0020872814554856 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gray, D. E. (2017). Doing research in the real world (4th ed.). SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2002). Implementing public policy. SAGE. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hollnagel, E., & Woods, D. D. (2005). Joint cognitive systems: Foundations of cognitive systems engineering. CRC Press. [Google Scholar]
  22. Keeley, M., Bullen, J., Bates, S., Katz, I., Choi, A. (2015). Opportunities for information sharing: Case studies. https://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/SPRC_Report__Opportunities_for_Information_Sharing.pdf
  23. Kerosuo, H., & Engeström, Y. (2003). Boundary crossing and learning in creation of New Work practice. Journal of Workplace Learning, 15(7/8), 345–351. 10.1108/13665620310504837 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Leach, C., Baksheev, G. N., & Powell, M. (2015). Child sexual abuse research: Challenges of case tracking through administrative databases. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(6), 912–919. 10.1080/13218719.2015.1019333 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Masson, J., Garside, L., & Jenney, S. (2020). Linking children’s social care data to information about their care proceedings to understand the use of care proceedings and their effects on parents, children and local authorities. Child & Family Social Work, 25(3), 628–636. 10.1111/cfs.12737 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Munro, E. (2019). Decision-making under uncertainty in child protection: Creating a just and learning culture. Child & Family Social Work, 24(1), 123–130. 10.1111/cfs.12589 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Nash, M., & Walker, L. (2009). Mappa – is closer collaboration really the key to effectiveness? Policing, 3(2), 172–180. 10.1093/police/pap007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Neave, M., Faulkner, P., & Nicholson, T. (2016). Royal Commission into family violence: Report and recommendations: Volume I. Melbourne, Australia. https://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/file_uploads/1b_RFV_284ppA4_ReportRecommendations_VolumeI.WEB_yhw6Fgch.pdf [Google Scholar]
  29. Nugus, P., Greenfield, D., Travaglia, J., Westbrook, J., & Braithwaite, J. (2010). How and where clinicians exercise power: Interprofessional relations in health care. Social Science & Medicine, 71(5), 898–909. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.05.029 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Phillips, C. (2002). From voluntary to statutory status: Reflecting on the experience of three partnerships established under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. In Hughes G., McLaughlin E., & Muncie E. (Eds.), Crime prevention and community safety (pp. 163–181). Sage. [Google Scholar]
  31. Rees, G. (2020). Getting the Sergeants on your side: The importance of interpersonal relationships and cultural interoperability for generating interagency collaboration between nurses and the police in custody suites. Sociology of Health & Illness, 42(1), 111–125. 10.1111/1467-9566.12989 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Richardson, S., & Asthana, S. (2006). Inter-agency information sharing in health and social care services: The role of professional culture. British Journal of Social Work, 36(4), 657–669. 10.1093/bjsw/bch257 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Rodriquez, J. (2015). Who is on the medical team?: Shifting the boundaries of belonging on the ICU. Social Science & Medicine, 144, 112–118. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.09.014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Stanley, N., Miller, P., Foster, H. R., & Thomson, G. (2011). Children’s experiences of domestic violence: Developing an integrated response from police and child protection services. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(12), 2372–2391. 10.1177/0886260510383030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Tregeagle, S., & Darcy, M. (2008). Child welfare and information technology: Today’s challenge. British Journal of Social Work, 38(8), 1481–1498. 10.1093/bjsw/bcm048 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Willig, C. (2013). Introducing qualitative research in psychology (3rd ed.). Open University Press. [Google Scholar]
  37. Wolgemuth, J. R., Erdil-Moody, Z., Opsal, T., Cross, J. E., Kaanta, T., Dickmann, E. M., & Colomer, S. (2015). Participants’ experiences of the qualitative interview: Considering the importance of research paradigms. Qualitative Research, 15(3), 351–372. 10.1177/1468794114524222 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Psychiatry, Psychology, and Law are provided here courtesy of Taylor & Francis

RESOURCES