What is the appropriate nurse response when a parent suspected of child abuse provides information that contradicts the child's account?

What is the appropriate nurse response when a parent suspected of child abuse provides information that contradicts the child's account?

• A. Tell me again how your child fell down the stairs
• B. I need to verify the child's account
• C. The information is not relevant
• D. We will proceed with standard questions

Answer: (A)

When a parent’s account contradicts the child’s story in a suspected abuse situation, the best move is to invite the parent to clarify the specifics of how the injury occurred. Saying, “Tell me again how your child fell down the stairs” opens up the conversation for a more detailed, nonjudgmental description of the mechanism. It helps the nurse assess whether the reported event plausibly explains the observed injuries, which is crucial for safety planning and accurate documentation. This approach maintains trust, avoids sounding accusatory, and encourages continued disclosure while you gather the information needed to evaluate risk. Other responses can shut down this kind of dialogue or imply distrust. For example, a statement like “I need to verify the child’s account” can feel like an interrogation and may cause a parent to shut down or become defensive. Declaring that “the information is not relevant” dismisses important details that must be weighed when abuse is suspected. Saying “we will proceed with standard questions” may overlook the need to resolve discrepancies in the history. In all cases, the goal is to obtain a clearer picture while keeping the child’s safety at the forefront.

When a parent’s account contradicts the child’s story in a suspected abuse situation, the best move is to invite the parent to clarify the specifics of how the injury occurred. Saying, “Tell me again how your child fell down the stairs” opens up the conversation for a more detailed, nonjudgmental description of the mechanism. It helps the nurse assess whether the reported event plausibly explains the observed injuries, which is crucial for safety planning and accurate documentation. This approach maintains trust, avoids sounding accusatory, and encourages continued disclosure while you gather the information needed to evaluate risk.

Other responses can shut down this kind of dialogue or imply distrust. For example, a statement like “I need to verify the child’s account” can feel like an interrogation and may cause a parent to shut down or become defensive. Declaring that “the information is not relevant” dismisses important details that must be weighed when abuse is suspected. Saying “we will proceed with standard questions” may overlook the need to resolve discrepancies in the history. In all cases, the goal is to obtain a clearer picture while keeping the child’s safety at the forefront.