Documentation Debrief by Edward Dubroski

edwarddubroski1 — 2025-06-25 19:33:12 UTC

The color coded rubric that is included in the back of the PG could be included as an attachment to be sent to the participants after the training

edwarddubroski1 — 2025-06-25 19:33:39 UTC

There was conversation around their own experiences with cases and investigations and their supervisor preferences in writing notes in NJ Spirit

Elements of Effective Documentation

edwarddubroski1 — 2025-06-25 19:34:21 UTC

The group worked collaboratively on writing the who, what, where, when, how questions. The participants appeared to be equipped and well versed in how to formulate questions to be added in the case notes.

Jones Family Sample (Handout C)

edwarddubroski1 — 2025-06-25 19:35:07 UTC

Slide 30 – Removal of Contact Note Debrief (as suggestion)

Miller Family MVR Case Study

edwarddubroski1 — 2025-06-25 19:35:39 UTC

Showing the Miller Family MVR twice to have the participants first view the video and take notes and then be provided the transcript afterwards for processing. take page 33 out of the PG

Documentation Skills Practice

edwarddubroski1 — 2025-06-30 12:20:10 UTC

The participants wanting more background information to complete the DSP

They expressed that it was difficult to be imaginative. There was not a recall of information to add in exercise.

First writing activity

2025-06-30 17:20:12 UTC

Trainee feedback that they do not like this activity (Section 4)- having to make up information to enhance documentation for a case that they have no knowledge of. They would like to be given some information in order to ground the documentation in relevant details. For example: CPS case?allegation? threat to safety? risk level? family and individual level issues? purpose of the visit? child's age?

3 Common Errors in Documentation (Activity 2)

2025-06-30 17:23:41 UTC

The second activity (Sami's expectations) has been very effective in trainees seeing how subjectivity and bias can sneak into their understanding of a family and from there, the documentation. There were a lot of small group discussions that allowed trainees to see how the way they were raised can directly impact the way they see different expectations as being "appropriate" or "inappropriate" for the age group.

3 Common Errors in Documentation (Activity 1)

2025-06-30 17:26:58 UTC

This has been an effective activity and provoked some discussion past what is T/F/U. For example, a trainee pointed out that the documentation indicated mom appeared sober, but the house was dirty. The trainee said that "dirty" can be slang for when someone is using, so his interpretation was that the mom was not actually sober. It highlighter why details matter.

Legal Documentation (Section 5)

2025-06-30 17:31:10 UTC

This is basically 1 slide, and though important, it is the second time that documentation is discussed as a legal record. Rather than a welcome break, this seems like a one off that diverts the flow of the training and the attention of the trainees.

Rubric Usage

2025-06-30 17:36:24 UTC

Trainees do not seem to use the rubric to give each other feedback. Perhaps the rubric would be easier for the trainees to use and prompt discussion if there were sample sentences that could be used to show the progression from "Needs Improvement" to "Exemplary". They do seem interested in taking the rubric back to the office to use as a reference/resource for themselves.

Trainee-Trainee Feedback

2025-06-30 17:39:11 UTC

Trainees are able to state positive features of the documentation written by the other trainee. They all seem to struggle/ are reluctant to state areas where there could be growth, so they are quiet when asked about sharing this.

Handouts

2025-06-30 17:41:41 UTC

Trainees did appreciate it when trainers pointed out that the "documentation exemplars" for each writing activity can be taken back to the office. Trainers pointed out that it can be used to prompt a discussion with their supervisor about what they would like to see in case note documentation.

edits in suggested curriculum edits document

2025-07-01 19:09:03 UTC

2025-07-01 19:19:48 UTC

For discussion, is there participant burnout being asked to complete 2 big activities back to back, both in the afternoon? is there value in thinking about structuring differently (as discussed informally-Section 1, then Section 2 (errors). After Section do, do current Section 4 (Fixing contact sheet with errors) which takes to Lunch. After Lunch, do Section 3 *(what goes in documentation), ending with Section 6 (practice of the MVR). [presuming section 5 gets merged]/)

2025-07-01 20:05:00 UTC

Course evaluations for all 4 runs, are generally very positive-trainees appreciate the information and are able to list much that they will use from the course and discuss much about the effectiveness of the course. the main trend with recommendation is related to wishing they had it earlier in their trajectory, which has already been implemented for PSC 07.08 and forward

2025-07-01 20:07:57 UTC

trainers were well prepared, knew the material, and were able to make connections to practice. participants were engaged and interested -evidenced by attentive body language- head nodding, contributing relevant information, and making their own connections to practice in teh LO

Last two exercises

2025-07-02 13:10:08 UTC

The last two exercises seemed to lose the attention of the trainees. They lost interest and some did not complete the last exercise.

micheletoscano — 2025-07-02 14:25:45 UTC

Restructure day -Section 1, then Section 2 (errors). After Section 2, do current Section 4 (Fixing contact sheet with errors) which takes to Lunch. After Lunch, do Section 3 *(what goes in documentation), ending with Section 6 (practice of the MVR). Section 5 merged with section 2.