Successful CDRs
* Examples of Team Members Roles Relevant to the CDR Process *
* Examples of Issues of Concern in Implementing and Sustaining *
* Factors that Contribute to Successful Implementation of CDR *
Examples of Review Team Members’ Roles Relevant to the CDR Process
| Team Member | Records to Supply for Review | Role on Team | Actual Members’ Prevention Actions in MI |
| Medical Examiner | Autopsy reports | Educate non-medical team members on disease process, mechanism of death/injury. | Wrote editorial in paper, did grand rounds re: dangers of bed-sharing w/infants. |
| Law Enforcement Officer | Scene investigation reports/ photos; witness interviews; state uniform crash reports; criminal background checks | Give details of incident, inform non-legal team members about role of law enforcement in scene process. | Organized Teen Driver Task Force re: loopholes in GDL law, gravel roads & parent involvement in program. |
| Public Health Representative | Home visits, immunizations, WIC, maternal/infant support services, prenatal care, birth records, smoking cessation | Share knowledge of child’s/ family’s health histories, services utilized, educate team re: birth info (gest, wt, etc) | Wrote grant applications, recruited staff and team members to establish new FIMR program in county. |
| Social Services Representative | Child Protective Services histories on caregivers, participation in parent ed, other support services (homemaking, job skills, etc.) | Share knowledge of family social history (divorce, DV, subs. abuse), inform team members about agency’s definition of abuse / neglect. | Spearheaded initiative to supply low-income families with new cribs for infants; supplied all police officers with 24-hr grief resources. |
| Prosecuting Attorney | Court proceedings related to case, prior adjudications involving family members/caregivers. | Educate team members on what are and are not prosecutable offenses and why; give advice to law enforcement re: scene investigation/documentations. | Launched water safety campaign - increased lake patrols and posted signs at each lake, obtained funding for swimming lessons and educational materials. |
| Pediatrician | Any health records on child | Educate team members re: disease processes in children, share any history w/child. | Composed letter to high school seniors and their parents to be distributed in area schools, encouraging safe driving behavior during prom and graduation time. |
| Emergency Medical Services | EMS run reports from fatal incident, any prior incidents at that address | Share facts about incident, details of scene, impressions of situation in general. | Asked social workers to help get smoke detectors in homes that lacked them. |
| Hospitals | ER records, surgeries, in-patient care, OB/GYN info | Share health records, inform team about hosp protocols. | Added safe sleep info to “Welcome Baby” gift bags. |
| Community Mental Health | Marklar | Educate team about psych meds, individual and group services available. | Partnered w/local council to develop community crisis response to death of a child.
|
| Probate or Family Court | Delinquency histories, probation records |
Inform team about court proceedings, options available for youth in trouble. | Suggested change to youth probation protocol when suicide risk is present. |
| School Representative | Marklar | Educate team on school policy & practices, curricula. | Tailored ISD annual staff workshops to address certain CDR findings. |
| Human Service Collaborative Rep | History of board’s activities related to cause of death/injury | Advise team on what is being or could be done on an issue. | Started a new SAFE KIDS chapter in the county. |
Examples of Issues of Concern in Implementing and Sustaining
| Category of Concern | Specific Example | Possible Solution |
Leadership |
Team chair was appointed by supervisor, does not truly buy into CDR process. |
Send team chair to state or national CDR training; provide TA & support. |
Population |
Urban team overwhelmed by caseload; rural team experiences attrition from lack of cases, need for review meetings. |
Urban team focuses on one cause of death per meeting; rural team begins reviewing serious injury, prevention. |
Information |
Team has consistent problem with key members missing meetings. |
Have members designate alternates; coord gets key reports before meeting. |
Administration |
Team coordinator feels overwhelmed by administrative tasks of running team. |
Other members take turns completing various administrative tasks of team. |
Trust |
Agency members without history of working together do not trust each other. |
Choose simple initiative that impacts both to collaborate on, building trust. |
Protocols |
New team struggles in deciding parameters of team’s activities. |
Team uses written team protocols as guide, adapting to community’s needs. |
Coordination |
Team feels disconnected from state level team due to lack of inter-communication. |
Local coords. compile findings, send to state team, ask for periodic feedback. |
Reporting |
Team conducts thorough reviews, but fails to complete/submit case reports. |
Appoint agency data analyst to team; sole task is case report completion. |
Efficiency |
Meetings begin to lack overall focus, effectiveness, efficiency of time. |
Reiterate goals of process before each meeting; send members to training. |
Monitoring |
Team unsure of how quality of their reviews compares to other teams in the state. |
Through coord. meetings, make contact with other teams, attend their reviews. |
Mindset |
Team seems unable to get past tragic events to see bigger picture of prevention. |
Obtain/share examples of other teams’ successes with prevention initiatives. |
Factors that Contribute to Successful Implementation of CDR
| Factor | Specific Example | Why This Contributes to Success |
State Support |
State agencies and government support the concept of the CDR process. |
Although a bottom-up process, agreement to participate is often top-down. |
Legislation |
Enabling & protecting legislation relating to CDR is passed at the state level. |
Gives legal basis for sharing sensitive information; legitimizes process for some. |
Funding TA and Support |
Funds to cover community consultants are appropriated by participating agency(ies). |
Expertise of CDR consultants facilitates formation and sustainability of teams. |
Housing of Program |
CDR staff are housed in a neutral location, with committed housing organization. |
Non-threatening to other disciplines involved; lessens turf issues. |
Pre-Organizational Seminar(s) |
A state with few or no local teams holds regional seminars for human service reps. |
Introduces the idea of the CDR process to multidisciplinary audience at one time. |
Organizational Meeting |
Team convenes first meeting as organizational only; no reviews are done. |
Provides opportunity to get acquainted, set parameters before attempting reviews. |
Interagency Agreement |
Agency directors sign joint agreement to participate in the CDR process. |
Solidifies multi-agency commitment and idea of shared ownership in the process. |
Confidentiality Statements |
All members sign annual confidentiality statements before sharing information. |
Further assures members/agencies still wary of liability associated with CDR. |
Training |
Statewide training provided to new local and state level team members annually. |
Informs members about types of death; builds skills for conducting reviews. |
Retro/Practice Reviews |
Team chooses a number of deaths from recent past as first batch of reviews. |
Serves as review practice; raises comfort level of members with the process. |
Buy-In of Core Members |
Agency reps required by law to be present are committed to CDR; attend all meetings. |
Sets tone for other members to follow; raises perceived importance of process. |
Ad Hoc Membership |
Team coordinator invites individuals who were involved in cases to those meetings. |
Gives members clearer pictures of events; facilitates prevention discussions. |
Access to Records
|
Adequate records on each death are made available to the team for review. |
Increases team’s ability to understand the circumstances of and report on the death. |
User-Friendly Reporting System |
Reporting system is easy to use, includes all important info, provides data feedback. |
Encourages teams to submit reports, allows them to generate summary data. |
Positive Focus |
Review focus remains on prospective actions as opposed to finger-pointing. |
Reassures members that is a public health process and not a witch hunt. |
Deaths Reviewed |
Broad base of deaths reviewed is inclusive of all preventable deaths, birth to age 18. |
Improves team’s ability to identify trends, enhances prevention/policy development. |
Dissemination of Findings |
Findings/recommendations are reported to professionals, legislators, the public, etc. |
Maximizes impact of the review process; reinforces members’ commitment. |

