03974nam a2200253   4500001000700000090001100007100004100018101000800059200011200067210003400179215002000213300024500233330288400478606003703362606003803399606002703437606001803464606002703482606002203509700002803531701003203559955001103591995011803602391603  a391603  a20130411u           y0pory50      ba  aeng  aCoroner investigations of suspicious elder deathsbRecurso eletrónicofLaura Mosqueda, Aileen Wiglesworth  a[Irvine, CA]ded. do a.d2012  a1 CD-ROMd12 cm  aTechnical report funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Award nr. 2008-MU-MU-0021.Ficheiro de 1,92 MB em formato PDF (94 p.). Disponível também em: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/239923.pdf. Acedido a 11 de abril de 2013.  aAbstract. I. Introduction. II. Background and review of the literature.  A. Elder death and Elder Death Review Teams (EDRT).  B. Report of death to CME. C. Investigation of suspicious deaths. D. Using CME data for research purposes. E. Factors associated with elder suspicious deaths in nursing homes.  F. CME Survey methods. G. LEAD methodology. III. Methods. A. Phase. Table 1: Multidisciplinary Advisory Board.  B. Phase 2.  IV. Results. A. Samples. Table 2: CME Investigators Interviewed during phase 1. B. Results for study objectives.  1. Results for Phase 1, Objective 1. Compile and analyze data associated with elder deaths collected by California County Coroner’s Offices.  Figure 1: Elder Deaths Investigated (2008).  Figure 2: Elder Deaths Autopsied (2008).  Figure 3: Autopsy Data: Cause of death. Figure 4: Autopsy data: place of death.  Figure 5: Elder homicides/elder death (2008).  Figure 6: Elder Homicides/Autopsy (2008). 2. Results for Phase 1, Objective 2. Compile the set of processes employed by California County Coroner’s Offices in making the decision to take jurisdiction when an elder death occurs, along with any information evaluating the success of these processes. a. Phone survey results.  Figure 7: Handling reported deaths by county size. b. Site visit results that address Objective 2.  i. Reliance on the Reporting Party. ii. Value of APS information. iii. Evidence of Neglect: pressure sores and filthy living conditions. iv. The age of the decedent influences the decision to take jurisdiction. v. Reluctance to seek out caregiver neglect cases. vi. Waived cases that are later investigated. vii. Levels of investigation. 3. Results for Phase 1, Objective 3. Develop a ‘best practice’ brief questionnaire [or Elder Suspicious Death Field Screen (ESDFS)] to assist County Coroner’s Offices in their decision making regarding taking jurisdiction and investigating an elder death. 4. Results for Phase 2, Objective 4. Pilot test and evaluate the effectiveness of the ESDFS in a selected subset of California counties. a. ESDFS and LEAD Panel Findings. Table 3. Site Comparison for al ESDFD data (N=115). Table 4. Site Comparison for LEAD Cases (N=55). Table 5. LEAD Outcomes. b. Follow up data findings.  Satisfaction Survey Findings. i. Analyses of the responses to the Satisfaction Survey Structured interviews. ii. Analyses of the responses to the Alternate Satisfaction Survey Structured interviews. V. Discussion. A. Lessons from CA CME data. B. Deciding which deaths to investigate. 1. CME Investigators attitudes toward caregiver neglect. 2. The role of the reporting party. 3. Viewing the body. 4. Expectation that elders die natural deaths. C. The ESDFS pilot study. VI. Limitations. VII. Conclusion, Recommendations and future directions. VII. Implications for Criminal Justice Policy and Practice.  References. Appendices.  aPERÍCIA MÉDICO-LEGAL9238090  aINVESTIGAÇÃO CRIMINAL9229431  aTERCEIRA IDADE9323848  aMORTE9234230  aESTADOS UNIDOS9334103  aMAUS TRATOS93093  aMOSQUEDAbLaura9357038  aWIGLESWORTHbAileen9357039  xOferta  104PJCD_223_00000000000000052022-06-066PJCD2239423685aPJcPJfPJ1CD223_50kPJCD223n2022-06-06o0rMOxOferta