Framing the detection of financial elder abuse as bystander intervention: decision cues, pathways to detection and barriers to action
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14668201311313578 |
| Pages | 54-68 |
| Published date | 05 April 2013 |
| Date | 05 April 2013 |
| Author | Mary L.M. Gilhooly,Deborah Cairns,Miranda Davies,Priscilla Harries,Kenneth J. Gilhooly,Elizabeth Notley |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Sociology |
Framing the detection of financial elder
abuse as bystander intervention:
decision cues, pathways to detection
and barriers to action
Mary L.M. Gilhooly, Deborah Cairns, Miranda Davies, Priscilla Harries,
Kenneth J. Gilhooly and Elizabeth Notley
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore the detection and prevention of elder financial abuse
through the lens of a ‘‘professional bystander intervention model’’. The authors were interested in the
decision cues that raise suspicions of financial abuse, how such abuse comes to the attention of
professionals who do not have a statutory responsibility for safeguardingolder adults, and the barriers to
intervention.
Design/methodology/approach – In-depth interviews were conducted using the critical incident
technique. Thematic analysis was carried out on transcribed interviews. In total, 20 banking and 20
health professionals were recruited. Participants were asked to discuss real cases which they had dealt
with personally.
Findings – The cases described indicated that a variety of cues were used in coming to a decision that
financial abuse was very likely taking place. Common to these cases was a discrepancy between what
is normal and expected and what is abnormal or unexpected. There was a marked differencein the type
of abuse noticed by banking and health professionals, drawing attention to the ways in which context
influences the likelihood that financial abuse will be detected. The study revealed that even if
professionals suspect abuse, there are barriers which prevent them acting.
Originality/value – The originality of this study lies in its use of the bystander intervention model to study
the decision-making processes of professionals who are not explicitly charged with adult safeguarding.
The study was also unique because real cases were under consideration. Hence, what the professionals
actually do, rather than what they might do, was under investigation.
Keywords Elder care, Elderly people, Personal finance, Banking, Elder financial abuse, Older adults,
Decision making, Bystander intervention, Safeguarding, Decision cues, England, Scotland
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Financial abuse appears to be either the most, or second most, common, type of elder abuse
(Acierno et al., 2010; Biggs et al., 2009; Clare et al., 2011; Feally et al., 2012; Lauman et al.,
2008; Naughton et al., 2010; Wu et al., 2012). In the UK Government guidance document No
Secrets, financial abuse is defined as ‘‘theft, fraud, exploitation, pressure in connection with
wills, property or inheritance or financial transactions, or the misuse or misappropriation of
property,possessions or benefits’’ (Depar tment of Health, 2000, Section 2.7, p. 9). However,it
must be kept in mind that there is no standard definition of financial abuse, nor does the term
have any legal status in the UK (House of Commons Health Committee, 2004; Crosby et al.,
2008).
Because there is no standard definition of the term financial abuse, and because financial
abuse may co-exist with the other types of elder abuse (physical, sexual, psychological,
PAGE 54
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
VOL. 15 NO. 2 2013, pp. 54-68, QEmerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203 DOI 10.1108/14668201311313578
Mary L.M. Gilhooly,
Deborah Cairns,
Miranda Davies,
Priscilla Harries,
Kenneth J. Gilhooly and
Elizabeth Notley are based
at the Brunel Institute for
Ageing Studies, School of
Health Sciences and Social
Care, Brunel University,
Uxbridge, UK.
To continue reading
Request your trial