Child Abuse Negl. 2021 Oct 30;122:105374. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105374. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Although child physical abuse is missed more frequently in community (CEDs) vs. pediatric emergency departments (PEDs), little information exists describing how evaluations of high-risk injuries differ between these settings.
OBJECTIVES: To determine differences in evaluations of infants for abuse between a PED and CEDs and whether a child abuse guideline reduced these differences.
PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Infants presenting to one PED (n = 162) and three CEDs (n = 159) with 3 injury categories: 1) Injuries for which the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends skeletal survey (SS) testing (infants <5-months with an oral injury or bruising, <9-months with a non-skull fracture, and < 12-months with an intracranial hemorrhage); 2) an oral injury or high-risk bruising in older infants; and 3) multiple types of high-risk injuries.
METHODS: We assessed differences in SS testing and child protective services (CPS) reporting between the PED and CEDs before and after implementation of a child abuse guideline.
RESULTS: The median (IQR) age was 4 months (2-7). Before guideline implementation, infants with injuries in categories 1 and 2 had an increased odds of SS testing in the PED vs. the CEDs (Category 1: aOR 2.83, 95% CI: 1.01-8.10; Category 2: aOR 10.1, CI: 1.2-88.0) and CPS reporting (Category 1: aOR 7.96, CI: 2.3-26.7; Category 2: aOR 12.0, CI: 1.4-103.5). After guideline implementation, there were no statistically significant differences in testing and reporting for any injury category.
CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a child abuse guideline minimized differences between a PED and CEDs in the evaluation of infants with injuries concerning for abuse.
PMID:34737120 | DOI:10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105374
