000			03945nam a2200277 4500
001			391603
090			_a391603
100			_a20130411u y0pory50 ba
101			_aeng
200			_aCoroner investigations of suspicious elder deaths _bRecurso eletrónico _fLaura Mosqueda, Aileen Wiglesworth
210			_a[Irvine, CA] _ded. do a. _d2012
215			_a1 CD-ROM _d12 cm
300			_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.
330			_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.
606			_aPERÍCIA MÉDICO-LEGAL _9238090
606			_aINVESTIGAÇÃO CRIMINAL _9229431
606			_aTERCEIRA IDADE _9323848
606			_aMORTE _9234230
606			_aESTADOS UNIDOS _9334103
606			_aMAUS TRATOS _93093
700			_aMOSQUEDA _bLaura _9357038
701			_aWIGLESWORTH _bAileen _9357039
955			_xOferta