The impact of a child abuse guideline on differences between pediatric and community emergency departments in the evaluation of injuries. (December 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Shum, May; Asnes, Andrea G.; Leventhal, John M.; Gaither, Julie R.; Bechtel, Kirsten; Powers, Emily; Tiyyagura, Gunjan
• Is Part Of: Child abuse & neglect. Volume 122(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-12
• Subjects: Community ED -- Pediatric ED -- Child abuse guideline -- High-risk injury; Child abuse -- Periodicals; 362.76
• DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105374
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0145-2134

Abstract

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. Highlights: Pediatric and community EDs differ in evaluation of infants with high-risk injuries. Injuries meeting AAP criteria and minor injuries differed significantly pre-guideline. There were no significant differences in evaluation of infants with multiple injuries. There were no significant differences after implementation of a child abuse guideline. Child abuse guidelines may improve the evaluation of infants with high-risk injuries.