Case 39 Review

[Carri Seargent]

Casereviews involve the MDT members gathering to have discussions about particular cases. Many benefits accrue to MDT members who participate in case review. However, working out the myriad logistics and ground rules is important for case review meetings to function smoothly. And bring food.

MDT members learn from each other. For example, a police officer can bring medical documents and photographs to a meeting and get immediate feedback from a nurse or physician regarding the level of suspicion and concern.

Information sharing is not only a teaching strategy, but also a way for team members to understand any problems the victim may be facing. For example, a victim may say something to one professional, who can then convey that conversation to the team during case review.

As discussed, one of the most important concepts that will facilitate a smooth-functioning MDT is trust. The success of the MDT is dependent upon establishing trust among the MDT members early and throughout the life of the MDT. Ironically, trust can be facilitated through the adoption of formal (and informal) rules and procedures.

There are variations in the degree of formality among MDTs, but it is generally preferable to have formal rules and procedures in place, a factor that also contributes to building trust. Some areas to consider include:

Case review guidelines (what information to include in case presentations and the order in which to present information; Toolkit item: Discussion of Case Review Logistics, provides an example following the Table)

The Toolkit item: Discussion of Case Review Logistics, presents a description of a number of issues related to meeting logistics that the MDT may want to discuss. And always bring food. Consistent across MDTs is the finding that providing food increases attendance and likely good will. Food can be as simple as cookies and coffee, but providing some nutritional incentive is highly recommended.

Next, the case is opened up for discussion among the MDT members. Any MDT member may ask questions, request more information, or brainstorm about potential solutions. For example, if there are capacity or mental health issues that warrant emergency removal orders, it may be beneficial to discuss these options with the group to determine if there are less restrictive means of advancing safety.

The team should discuss the case from a variety of perspectives. Reaching a consensus on the underlying cause of the problem will facilitate a unified solution. Framing the problem has tremendous implications for which interventions are selected, with important consequences for the victims.

Based on the discussion, a set of recommendations might be adopted that include a record review, new ideas regarding services in the community, suggestions for the next step an individual should take, or a house call. Any further discussion of the risks and benefits occurs at this point. Any dissenting opinions should be formally recorded. MDT members are given assignments that are recorded to ensure follow through.

The MDT Coordinator will write a formal summary of the recommendations adopted by the MDT. The MDT may want to develop a case review data collection form (or some other method of tracking meeting data). Assignments for follow-up are made this point. The meeting minutes are written and distributed as soon as possible to all MDT members. Consider including in the minutes:

After a thorough discussion, a plan of action should be developed and adopted by the MDT, with MDT members carrying out the recommendations. The information captured in the plan of action will assist the team in measuring the success of each case. Accountability is important for the MDT members and survival of the MDT; therefore, assignments should be made explicit during the meeting. Consider recapping assignments and expectations just before the MDT adjourns.

The MDT Coordinator (or whomever the MDT chooses for this role) has responsibility for following up with MDT members who were given particular assignments to enhance accountability. In addition to distributing meeting notes which contains a summary of assignments, some MDTs use email reminders to ensure MDT members are aware of their commitments. The MDT Coordinator should then hold team members accountable at the following meeting.

In the report, the bottom of the table shows the minimum number of cases you need for Foot and for RRA case review eligibility. The center section addresses whether you have enough cases for ABFAS to select cases for the exam.

A team of ABFAS Diplomates will evaluate all aspects of your cases. This includes evaluation of preoperative clinical and radiographic assessments and post-operative care, as well as performance of the procedure(s) including technical skills assessment and outcome analysis.

SEVP is a part of the National Security Investigations Division and acts as a bridge for government organizations that have an interest in information on nonimmigrants whose primary reason for coming to the United States is to be students.

Individuals requesting a detention case review should contact their local ERO field office for initial consideration. Upon request, cases will be further reviewed by a Senior Reviewing Official, who, where appropriate, will communicate the ultimate resolution with the requestor. The cases of individuals detained in ICE custody or pending imminent removal will be prioritized.

As a law enforcement agency within the Department of Homeland Security, ICE is charged with enforcing immigration laws in a way that supports and prioritizes national security, border security and public safety. Like other national security and public safety agencies, ICE operates in an environment of limited resources, under which ICE must prioritize its enforcement and removal operations.

On July 28, 2023, after successful litigation before the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Texas, 143 S. Ct. 1964 (2023), the Civil Immigration Enforcement Priorities originally set forth in the September 30, 2021 Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law, were reimplemented. If you are a noncitizen and believe you should not be subject to civil immigration enforcement, including because you are not a priority for enforcement, detention, or removal, you are encouraged to contact your local ICE field office to request a case review. Your legal representative may also make case review requests on your behalf.

Please note that submitting a request to the ERO SRO without first requesting a review by the local ICE field office may result in rejection of your request and delay a final resolution of your case. Please contact your local ERO field office to access a directory of local ICE field office locations and select the field office relative to your geographic location to submit your initial request for review.

Yes. However, in order to provide information to someone other than the subject of the request, ICE requires a complete and signed Form G-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Accredited Representative, or ICE Form 60-001, Privacy Waiver Authorizing Disclosure to a Third Party.

Case review requests are not required to follow a strict format; however, they must include at a minimum the following information: name, A-number, date of birth, country of birth, telephone number, email address, the form of prosecutorial discretion you are seeking, a statement that a case review was previously submitted to the local ICE field office, and the outcome of that request. Please ensure to include a copy of your local ICE field office request as well as their response. A request may be rejected if any of this information is not included in your submission.

The SRO will review and fully consider all the information that was submitted as part of your initial case review request to the local ICE field office and any response you received from the local ICE field office. If the facts of your case have changed since the local ICE field office reviewed your case, you should submit a new request to the local ICE field office with the additional supporting information.

Response times will vary based upon case volume, case complexity, and other factors, but the SRO will prioritize cases involving individuals detained in ICE custody or pending imminent removal. While each case is unique and will require its own analysis which can impact response time, the SRO will endeavor to respond within 14 days for detained cases.

Case review is the formal process through which professionals share facts and observations that inform team decisions and assist participating professionals to make decisions about cases. Case review is a core standard of an accredited member CAC program. Case review presents an opportunity for each professional to share their unique knowledge and skill with the other team members and allows for full discussion on determining the optimum case plan and next steps.

Students who choose the Comprehensive Case Review option are required to also complete two social work electives. The Comprehensive Case Review allows students the opportunity to integrate and apply knowledge from MSW courses and the practicum. The Comprehensive Case Review reflects advanced generalist practice understanding, values, and skills gained during the MSW Program. The Comprehensive Case Review Committee Chair meets with the Concentration Year students in the fall semester to provide detailed information and guidelines for the Comprehensive Case Review. Please note that the exact content and format for the Comprehensive Case Review may vary each year.

All students planning to complete a comprehensive case review are invited to attend the comprehensive case review workshops. These workshops are designed to help you formulate your case key elements and discuss the integrated learning process.

3a8082e126