Search results

Metacognition, learning how to learn, peer feedback and peer review.

Essay based on experience as a reviewer and editor and best practices.

This quick start guide provides a tutorial on how to review teaching cases and the associated instructor’s manual or teaching note. The purpose of this guide is to help develop the confidence and skill of novice reviewers and refresh and refocus experienced reviewers. Case writers may also use this guide to anticipate peer reviewer feedback and assess or refine their cases before submitting them to a journal. Reviewing is essential to the Academy – without peer reviews there would be no peer reviewed journal articles, a pillar of the tenure process. Reviewing is also a valuable way to learn, to keep current in a field and to be a good citizen – contributing to one’s professional community. This guide will help scholars become even more effective reviewers, writers and contributors to the Academy.

For academics interested in developing their case reviewing skills.

This article provides perspectives on the academic review process, instructional cases, and suggests guidelines to follow when reviewing cases as part of the referee process. This paper provides an overview of the academic review process and describes the review processes for instructional cases. The processes of the CASE Association are provided as perspectives.

The first purpose of this paper is to update the core data set of self-neglect safeguarding adult reviews (SAR) and accompanying thematic analysis. A second purpose is to rebalance the narrative about adult safeguarding and self-neglect by highlighting two case studies where the practice was informed by SAR and the evidence-base of best practice.

Further published reviews are added to the core data set, drawn from the websites of Safeguarding Adults Boards (SAB). Thematic analysis is updated using the four domains used previously. Two case studies are presented, using the four domains of direct practice, team around the person, organisational support and governance, to demonstrate that positive outcomes can be achieved when practice and support for practitioners align with the evidence-base.

Familiar findings emerge from the thematic analysis and reinforce the evidence-base of good practice with individuals who self-neglect and for policies and procedures with which to support those practitioners working with such cases. The case studies are illustrative examples of what can be achieved and signpost SABs and SAR authors to question what enables and what obstructs best practice.

A national database of reviews completed by SABs has been established (https://nationalnetwork.org.uk) with the expectation that, in time, this will become a comprehensive resource. It is possible, however, that this data set is incomplete. Drawing together the findings from the reviews nonetheless builds on what is known about the components of effective practice, and effective policy and organisational arrangements for practice. Although individual reviews might comment on good practice alongside shortfalls, no published SARs have been found that were commissioned specifically to learn lessons from what had worked out well. More emphasis could be given to what might be learned from such cases.

Answering the question “why” remains a significant challenge for SAR not only where concerns about how agencies worked together prompted review but also where positive outcomes have been achieved. The findings confirm the relevance of the evidence-base for effective practice, but SARs are limited in their analysis of what enables and what obstructs the components of best practice. Greater explicit use of case studies with positive outcomes might enable learning about what enables positive system change.

The paper extends the thematic analysis of available reviews that focus on work with adults who self-neglect, further reinforcing the evidence base for practice. The paper presents two case studies where practice and the context within which practitioners were working closely aligned to the evidence-base for best practice. The paper suggests that SABs and SAR authors should focus explicitly on what enables and what obstructs the realisation of best practices.

Cold case review teams and the processes that they adopt in their endeavour to solve historic crimes are varied and largely underreported. Of the limited literature surrounding the topic of cold case reviews, the focus is on clearance rates and the selection of cases for review. While multiple reports and reviews have been undertaken and recommend that the interface between investigators and forensic scientists be improved, there is little evidence of cold case teams comprised of a mixture of investigators and scientists or experts. With the growing reliance on forensic science as an aide to solvability, the authors propose that the inclusion of forensic scientists to the central cold case investigation may be a critical factor in future success. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

To support the proposed approach, the authors conducted a review of the current literature seeking insight into the reported make-up of cold case teams. In conjunction with this, the authors reviewed a number of commissioned reports intended to improve cold case reviews and forensic services.

While many of the reviewed reports and recommendations suggested better integration with scientists and external expertise, little evidence of this in practice was reported within published literature. Open dialogue and cross pollination between police investigators and forensic scientists are likely to mitigate biases, inform case file triage and better equip investigations with contemporary and cutting-edge scientific solutions to the evidence analysis for cold cases. Furthermore, with respect to scientists within academia, large pools of resources by way of student interns or researchers may be available to assist resource-sparse policing jurisdictions.

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first peer-reviewed recommendation for the consideration of integrated forensic scientists within a cold case review team. Multiple reports suggest the need for closer ties, but it is the anecdotal experience of the authors that the benefits of a blended task force approach may yield greater success.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to update the core data set of self-neglect serious case reviews (SCRs) and safeguarding adult reviews (SARs), and accompanying thematic analysis; second, to respond to the critique in the Wood Report of SCRs commissioned by Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs) by exploring the degree to which the reviews scrutinised here can transform and improve the quality of adult safeguarding practice.

Further published reviews are added to the core data set from the websites of Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs) and from contacts with SAB independent chairs and business managers. Thematic analysis is updated using the four domains employed previously. The findings are then further used to respond to the critique in the Wood Report of SCRs commissioned by LSCBs, with implications discussed for Safeguarding Adult Boards.

Thematic analysis within and recommendations from reviews have tended to focus on the micro context, namely, what takes place between individual practitioners, their teams and adults who self-neglect. This level of analysis enables an understanding of local geography. However, there are other wider systems that impact on and influence this work. If review findings and recommendations are to fully answer the question “why”, systemic analysis should appreciate the influence of national geography. Review findings and recommendations may also be used to contest the critique of reviews, namely, that they fail to engage practitioners, are insufficiently systemic and of variable quality, and generate repetitive findings from which lessons are not learned.

There is still no national database of reviews commissioned by SABs so the data set reported here might be incomplete. The Care Act 2014 does not require publication of reports but only a summary of findings and recommendations in SAB annual reports. This makes learning for service improvement challenging. Reading the reviews reported here against the strands in the critique of SCRs enables conclusions to be reached about their potential to transform adult safeguarding policy and practice.

Answering the question “why” is a significant challenge for SARs. Different approaches have been recommended, some rooted in systems theory. The critique of SCRs challenges those now engaged in SARs to reflect on how transformational change can be achieved to improve the quality of adult safeguarding policy and practice.

The paper extends the thematic analysis of available reviews that focus on work with adults who self-neglect, further building on the evidence base for practice. The paper also contributes new perspectives to the process of conducting SARs by using the analysis of themes and recommendations within this data set to evaluate the critique that reviews are insufficiently systemic, fail to engage those involved in reviewed cases and in their repetitive conclusions demonstrate that lessons are not being learned.

Sexual assault continues to be a major criminal problem. Sexual assault kits (SAK) are one way to preserve evidence to use to pursue justice in sexual assault cases. In recent years, it has become clear that very often these SAKs are never sent to the crime lab to be processed. In an effort to deal with these unsubmitted kits and to research their impact, the Bureau of Justice Assistance funded various grants, known as the Sexual Assault Kit Initiative (SAKI) nationwide to create multidisciplinary teams to both improve the process and response to sexual assault and to provide research on this issue. This paper aims to explore a process created by one of the multidisciplinary teams in one SAKI site – the case review. Ultimately, the goal is to explore how different participants in the case review process perceive and experience the case review and provide implications of these findings.

Using surveys of case review participants, participant observation and key stakeholder interviews findings indicate that case reviews are beneficial in terms of training, collaboration and overall response to sexual assault.

Using all methods, the participants of case reviews found them beneficial. Both new information was gleaned from almost every case review and decisions on particular cases were potentially changed, particularly among the key stakeholders with the ability to impact decisions in sexual assault cases – law enforcement and prosecutors. Issues were raised through the case review process that might not have been without this process. Thus, case reviews have the potential to affect policy and practice and improve future reporting, investigations and prosecutions of sexual assault cases.

Multidisciplinary responses to sexual assault cases, specifically the case review process, are beneficial. Issues for training, opportunities for collaboration and general issues for a particular jurisdiction are all potentially raised during a case review. The case reviews need to be organized, preparation work completed and properly facilitated to be effective. Participants in the case review process themselves perceive case reviews to be beneficial.

This paper presents findings from one of the SAKI sites. A specific process, the case review process, that was developed and implemented at this site was explored. The findings on this process have implications for both practice and policy.

The purpose of this scoping literature review was to identify and consolidate all available theories and methods for cold case homicide evaluation, solvability and priority ranking that would serve to guide a broader exploratory study and future research.

The paper presents the findings of a scoping literature review. The review forms part of a broader exploratory study. The scoping literature review sought to identify reported evidence from the extant literature in identifying and defining key concepts relevant to cold prioritisation. It also sought to identify any knowledge gaps relevant to the scoping review question.

The review suggested that internationally, there is a wide variance and inconsistency in the processes, methods and criteria used by policing agencies to evaluate and prioritise cold cases for investigation. Despite this, there were four themes that could be regarded as [parameters for future cold case research: cold case evaluation and review, prioritisation methods, solvability and prioritisation systems and tools. The review revealed several gaps in the literature. No papers could be found discussing the allocation of individual priority rankings based on any kind of weighted criteria system or model. Further, no information could be found in the available literature on any automated systems, online tools, algorithms, or applications utilised when evaluating or prioritising cases.

The research results are limited in that it is possible that relevant extant literature exists that was not discoverable using the scoping review search strategy.

The paper is a part of a broader exploratory study that seeks to develop a framework for cold case prioritisation that, in a time where public scrutiny has increased, has increased transparency with clearly articulated criteria for evaluation and process.

This paper assimilates the extant literature associated with cold case evaluation and prioritisation and presents a summary of themes and gaps in knowledge that informs future research.

Serious case review was neither envisaged nor mandated in the original No Secrets (Department of Health, 2000) although individual authorities have issued protocols in the intervening period. Recognising that there would always be a need to look back and to learn from challenging cases, Kent was one of the first authorities to put in place a mechanism for referral and conduct of these reviews. In this paper, I summarise the way this process is set in train, and what we have learned from the reviews we have undertaken to date. I write as the independent chair of the Serious Case Review Panel, and as an occasional chair of one‐off inquiries for other authorities, which I also refer to for comparison.

The purpose of this paper is to update the core data set of self-neglect safeguarding adult reviews (SARs) and accompanying thematic analysis and explore the degree to which SARs draw upon available research and learning from other completed reviews.

Further published reviews are added to the core data set, mainly drawn from the websites of Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs). Thematic analysis is updated using the four domains used previously. The four domains and the thematic analysis are rounded in the evidence-based model of good practice, reported in this journal previously. Multiple exclusion homelessness and alcohol misuse are prominent in this sample of reviews.

Familiar findings emerge from the thematic analysis and reinforce the evidence-base of good practice with individuals who self-neglect and for policies and procedures with which to support those practitioners working with such cases. Multiple exclusion homelessness emerges as a subset within this sample, demonstrating that SABs are engaging in reviews of people who die on the streets or in temporary accommodation.

The national database of reviews commissioned by SABs remains incomplete and does not contain many of the SARs reported in this evolving data set. The Care Act 2014 does not require publication of reports but only a summary of findings and recommendations in SAB annual reports. NHS Digital annual data sets do not enable identification of reviews by types of abuse and neglect. It is possible, therefore, that this data set is also incomplete. Drawing together the findings from the reviews nonetheless builds on what is known about the components of effective practice, and effective policy and organisational arrangements for practice.

Answering the question “why” remains a significant challenge for safeguarding adult reviews. The findings confirm the relevance of the evidence-base for effective practice but SARs are limited in their analysis of what enables and what obstructs the components of best practice. Greater explicit use of research and other published SARs might assist with answering the “why” question, drawing attention where appropriate to policies being pursued by the central government that undermine any initiative to end rough sleeping.

This paper extends the thematic analysis of available reviews that focus on work with adults who self-neglect, further reinforcing the evidence-base for practice. The evidence-base also supports practice with individuals who experience multiple exclusion homelessness. Policymakers and practitioners have an approach to follow in this complex, challenging and demanding area of practice.