e term “intervention” can be replaced by “options” or “assistance”, as an inter- vention may seem to remove the agency from the older person.
An important issue that was not ad- dressed appropriately in Diagram 1.3 is the need to ensure the victim’s safety and that appropriate safety planning takes place for individuals, particularly for patients who do not have the capac- ity to decide for themselves about ac- cepting services.
As for an intervention plan, it was sug- gested to create a hotline/helpline for PHC professionals. e diagram (1.3) was viewed as slightly inflexible.
e literature list needs to be updated.
e participants concluded that the PAHO
manual was not considered appropriate for use in Singapore, Spain or Australia for the reasons outlined above.31 In these three countries, follow-up strategies are already in place that seem to better reflect the country-specific realities. e Brazilian group thought that the manual would be used if it was shorter and adjusted to the Brazilian context – for instance, the flow- charts need some adaptation – as it could raise awareness about abuse and neglect among PHC professionals. In both Costa Rica and Kenya, there was a strong feeling that the PAHO manual’s content and issues are appropriate and it could be used readily.
e recommendations for the PAHO manual summarized in this section are based mostly on the reports from
these three countries. More information can be found in Annex 4.