How useful was a paediatric physical abuse screening project in a rural Australian emergency department?

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Emergency Medicine Australasia Pub Date : 2025-01-30 DOI:10.1111/1742-6723.70000
John van Bockxmeer ADEM, FACRRM, Lesley Enzor FRACGP, Marshall Makate PhD, Suzanne Robinson PhD
{"title":"How useful was a paediatric physical abuse screening project in a rural Australian emergency department?","authors":"John van Bockxmeer ADEM, FACRRM,&nbsp;Lesley Enzor FRACGP,&nbsp;Marshall Makate PhD,&nbsp;Suzanne Robinson PhD","doi":"10.1111/1742-6723.70000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>Children with non-accidental injuries have increased risk of future death. There is insufficient evidence for widespread physical abuse screening tool use in the ED. This study assesses the utility of a physical abuse project that includes the implementation of a screening tool with case-matching from multiple sources. It aims to confirm whether risk-screening in a medium-sized rural Australian ED is reliable and will improve outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This is a 16-month ED retrospective pre-/post-implementation study of all injury, burn or poisoning cases 16 years and under during a paediatric physical abuse safety project which included a screening tool. Presentations with potential physical abuse were filtered by ICD-10 codes and reviewed. Multivariable logistic regression models compared pre- and post-implementation cases. Analyses examined outcomes, trends and interrogated the screening tool which formed a Clinical Pathway Algorithm (CPA).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 1469 presentations underwent investigation: 747 pre-implementation and 722 post-implementation. Pearson's <i>χ</i><sup>2</sup> test showed statistically insignificant differences. If tool used, documentation improved (odds ratio [OR] 7.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.91–12.18), child protection service referrals increased (OR 5.50; 95% CI 1.82–16.61) and hospital admissions decreased (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.22–0.79). Re-presentation rates stayed the same. Increased physical abuse was associated with screening factors including carer behavioural concerns, inadequate supervision, delayed presentation, repeat and unexplained injuries (ORs/CIs in an accompanying Table 4). Screening tool sensitivity was 62.3% and specificity 79.7%.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Implementing this ED paediatric physical abuse project improved safety behaviours and best-practice documentation. The tool improved medical decision making without increased re-presentations. ED clinicians may use similar CPAs to help review safety concerns and facilitate discharge; however, resources are needed to investigate referrals flagged due to false-positive rates.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":11604,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Medicine Australasia","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11782729/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Medicine Australasia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1742-6723.70000","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Children with non-accidental injuries have increased risk of future death. There is insufficient evidence for widespread physical abuse screening tool use in the ED. This study assesses the utility of a physical abuse project that includes the implementation of a screening tool with case-matching from multiple sources. It aims to confirm whether risk-screening in a medium-sized rural Australian ED is reliable and will improve outcomes.

Methods

This is a 16-month ED retrospective pre-/post-implementation study of all injury, burn or poisoning cases 16 years and under during a paediatric physical abuse safety project which included a screening tool. Presentations with potential physical abuse were filtered by ICD-10 codes and reviewed. Multivariable logistic regression models compared pre- and post-implementation cases. Analyses examined outcomes, trends and interrogated the screening tool which formed a Clinical Pathway Algorithm (CPA).

Results

A total of 1469 presentations underwent investigation: 747 pre-implementation and 722 post-implementation. Pearson's χ2 test showed statistically insignificant differences. If tool used, documentation improved (odds ratio [OR] 7.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.91–12.18), child protection service referrals increased (OR 5.50; 95% CI 1.82–16.61) and hospital admissions decreased (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.22–0.79). Re-presentation rates stayed the same. Increased physical abuse was associated with screening factors including carer behavioural concerns, inadequate supervision, delayed presentation, repeat and unexplained injuries (ORs/CIs in an accompanying Table 4). Screening tool sensitivity was 62.3% and specificity 79.7%.

Conclusion

Implementing this ED paediatric physical abuse project improved safety behaviours and best-practice documentation. The tool improved medical decision making without increased re-presentations. ED clinicians may use similar CPAs to help review safety concerns and facilitate discharge; however, resources are needed to investigate referrals flagged due to false-positive rates.

Abstract Image

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
澳大利亚农村急诊科的儿童身体虐待筛查项目有多大用处?
目的:儿童非意外伤害增加了未来死亡的风险。没有足够的证据表明在ED中广泛使用身体虐待筛查工具。本研究评估了一个身体虐待项目的效用,该项目包括实施一种筛查工具,并从多个来源进行病例匹配。它的目的是确认风险筛查在一个中等规模的澳大利亚农村ED是否可靠,并将改善结果。方法:这是一项为期16个月的ED回顾性实施前/实施后研究,研究对象为16岁及以下儿童身体虐待安全项目期间的所有伤害、烧伤或中毒病例,其中包括筛查工具。有潜在身体虐待的报告被ICD-10代码过滤并审查。多变量logistic回归模型比较了实施前后的案例。分析检查的结果,趋势和询问筛选工具,形成临床路径算法(CPA)。结果:共调查1469例报告:实施前747例,实施后722例。Pearson χ2检验显示差异无统计学意义。如果使用工具,文件得到改善(优势比[OR] 7.73;95%可信区间[CI] 4.91-12.18),儿童保护服务转诊增加(OR 5.50;95% CI 1.82-16.61)和住院率下降(OR 0.42;95% ci 0.22-0.79)。再现率保持不变。身体虐待的增加与筛查因素相关,包括护理者行为问题、监管不足、延迟表现、重复和不明原因的伤害(ORs/ ci见附表4)。筛查工具的敏感性为62.3%,特异性为79.7%。结论:实施ED儿童身体虐待项目改善了安全行为和最佳实践文件。该工具在不增加复诊的情况下改善了医疗决策。急诊科的临床医生可以使用类似的注册会计师来帮助审查安全问题和促进出院;然而,需要资源来调查因假阳性率而被标记的转诊。
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
Emergency Medicine Australasia
Emergency Medicine Australasia 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
13.00%
发文量
217
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Emergency Medicine Australasia is the official journal of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine (ACEM) and the Australasian Society for Emergency Medicine (ASEM), and publishes original articles dealing with all aspects of clinical practice, research, education and experiences in emergency medicine. Original articles are published under the following sections: Original Research, Paediatric Emergency Medicine, Disaster Medicine, Education and Training, Ethics, International Emergency Medicine, Management and Quality, Medicolegal Matters, Prehospital Care, Public Health, Rural and Remote Care, Technology, Toxicology and Trauma. Accepted papers become the copyright of the journal.
期刊最新文献
Retrospective Evaluation of the STONE Score and Modified Stone Score for Prediction of Renal Tract Stones Are We Measuring What Matters? Re-Examining National Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Outcome Indicators Acute Suspected Stroke Clinical Pathway Use in Tasmanian Emergency Departments: A Retrospective Study One-Year Retrospective Evaluation of Blood Administration Practices Within LifeFlight Medicine Sustaining Emergency Medicine: Workforce Wellbeing, Moral Integrity and the Power of Action
×
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:604180095
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