You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Review
New challenges in adolescent safeguarding
  1. David R James1,
  2. Nwanneka N Sargant2,
  3. Nancy Bostock3,
  4. Sophie Khadr4,5
  1. 1Emergency Department, Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, Bristol, UK
  2. 2Department of Paediatric Endocrinology, Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, Bristol, UK
  3. 3Department of Paediatrics, Cambridge University Hospital Trust, Cambridge, UK
  4. 4The Havens Sexual Assault Referral Centre, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  5. 5Population, Policy and Practice Programme, UCL Institute of Child Health, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr David R James, Children's Emergency Department, Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, Bristol BS2 8BJ, UK; davidrjames{at}doctors.org.uk

Abstract

The environment in which young people are growing up has changed significantly with the growth in social communication, changes in migration patterns and the proliferation of gangs. These changes pose a real and present danger to the health and well-being of young people in the UK and around the world. However, recognition of the safeguarding needs for this group continues to lag behind those of younger children and services often remain patchy and incomplete. We present a review of current safeguarding concerns as well as practical suggestions on their recognition and response for professionals working with young people in all branches of healthcare as well as education and wider society.

  • Adolescent
  • Grooming
  • Gang
  • Exploitation
  • Trafficking
  • Safeguarding

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/postgradmedj-2016-134426

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors DRJ was responsible for the original conception of the review, for content within the introduction; grooming/CSE; sexting; radicalisation; conclusion as well as overall editorship for the final manuscript. NNS was responsible for content on trafficking and gang involvement. NB was responsible for content on assessment. SK was responsible for additional editorship of final manuscript.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.