Evaluating bias of child maltreatment referrals in encounters for unintentional ingestions

Gabriella Giugliano , Danae L. Massengill , Gia Badolato , Xian Zhao
{"title":"Evaluating bias of child maltreatment referrals in encounters for unintentional ingestions","authors":"Gabriella Giugliano ,&nbsp;Danae L. Massengill ,&nbsp;Gia Badolato ,&nbsp;Xian Zhao","doi":"10.1016/j.chipro.2024.100077","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Unintentional ingestions commonly result in presentation to the pediatric emergency department (PED). No standardized recommendations exist regarding when to call Child Protective Services (CPS) for unintentional ingestions, which allows for the possibility of biased decision-making.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Identify patient and visit level characteristics associated with CPS referral status in unintentional ingestion encounters.</div></div><div><h3>Participants and Setting</h3><div>Retrospective cross-sectional study of children ≤6 years old presenting with unintentional ingestion to a metropolitan PED from 2015 to 2021.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>ICD-10-CM codes were used to identify unintentional ingestion visits in the electronic health record. CPS referral was determined by manual chart review. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models identified patient and visit level characteristics associated with CPS referral. Socioeconomic status (SES) was classified based on zip code, the Child Opportunity Index data, and insurance.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 3,836 charts reviewed, 808 met inclusion criteria. CPS referrals were made in 109 (13.5%) visits. Compared to non-Hispanic white patients, non-Hispanic Black patients had 7.37 (95% CI:1.38, 39.26) higher adjusted odds of being referred to CPS after adjusting for triage level, age, and ingestion type. Patients in the Lowest SES group had a 3.01 (95% CI:1.42, 6.40) higher adjusted odds when compared to the Middle/Highest SES group.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This study found that CPS referrals in unintentional ingestions occur more often in those identifying as non-Hispanic Black and in those in the Lowest SES group, suggesting clinician bias may impact the decision regarding referrals. To mitigate subjective decision-making, we propose creating standardized, objective CPS referral criteria for unintentional ingestions.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100237,"journal":{"name":"Child Protection and Practice","volume":"3 ","pages":"Article 100077"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child Protection and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950193824000779","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Unintentional ingestions commonly result in presentation to the pediatric emergency department (PED). No standardized recommendations exist regarding when to call Child Protective Services (CPS) for unintentional ingestions, which allows for the possibility of biased decision-making.

Objective

Identify patient and visit level characteristics associated with CPS referral status in unintentional ingestion encounters.

Participants and Setting

Retrospective cross-sectional study of children ≤6 years old presenting with unintentional ingestion to a metropolitan PED from 2015 to 2021.

Methods

ICD-10-CM codes were used to identify unintentional ingestion visits in the electronic health record. CPS referral was determined by manual chart review. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression models identified patient and visit level characteristics associated with CPS referral. Socioeconomic status (SES) was classified based on zip code, the Child Opportunity Index data, and insurance.

Results

Of 3,836 charts reviewed, 808 met inclusion criteria. CPS referrals were made in 109 (13.5%) visits. Compared to non-Hispanic white patients, non-Hispanic Black patients had 7.37 (95% CI:1.38, 39.26) higher adjusted odds of being referred to CPS after adjusting for triage level, age, and ingestion type. Patients in the Lowest SES group had a 3.01 (95% CI:1.42, 6.40) higher adjusted odds when compared to the Middle/Highest SES group.

Conclusion

This study found that CPS referrals in unintentional ingestions occur more often in those identifying as non-Hispanic Black and in those in the Lowest SES group, suggesting clinician bias may impact the decision regarding referrals. To mitigate subjective decision-making, we propose creating standardized, objective CPS referral criteria for unintentional ingestions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估无意误食事件中儿童虐待转介的偏差
背景无意摄入通常会导致儿童急诊科(PED)就诊。关于无意摄食何时呼叫儿童保护服务机构(CPS),目前尚无标准化建议,这可能导致决策出现偏差。目标确定与无意摄食就诊中 CPS 转诊状态相关的患者和就诊级别特征。通过人工病历审查确定 CPS 转诊。双变量和多变量逻辑回归模型确定了与 CPS 转诊相关的患者和就诊级别特征。社会经济地位(SES)根据邮政编码、儿童机会指数数据和保险进行分类。有 109 人次(13.5%)转介到 CPS。与非西班牙裔白人患者相比,在对分诊级别、年龄和摄入类型进行调整后,非西班牙裔黑人患者被转诊至 CPS 的调整后几率为 7.37 (95% CI:1.38, 39.26)。与中等/最高社会经济地位组相比,最低社会经济地位组患者的调整后几率要高出 3.01 (95% CI:1.42, 6.40)。结论本研究发现,非西班牙裔黑人和最低社会经济地位组患者更常因无意摄入而被 CPS 转诊,这表明临床医生的偏见可能会影响转诊决定。为了减少主观决策,我们建议针对无意摄入制定标准化、客观的 CPS 转介标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Systematic review: Impact of juvenile incarceration Attitudes towards parents with a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder in child protection settings Silent group sandplay activates healing How could you help me? Children's voices on violence in child welfare files: A thematic analysis The use of technology and mobile health apps in child maltreatment interventions: Perspectives of TF-CBT therapists and SafeCare providers
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1