4.1 Article

Screening for Child Abuse in Children With Isolated Skull Fractures

期刊

PEDIATRIC EMERGENCY CARE
卷 39, 期 6, 页码 374-377

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PEC.0000000000002823

关键词

child abuse; skull fracture; trauma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Head trauma is the leading cause of child abuse-related deaths, and multiple incidents of abuse lead to more severe outcomes. Isolated skull fractures (ISF) are typically treated conservatively in the emergency department. This study aimed to examine the screening practices for physical abuse in children with ISF in a children's hospital ED.
ObjectiveHead trauma is the most common cause of death from child abuse, and each encounter for recurrent abuse is associated with greater morbidity. Isolated skull fractures (ISF) are often treated conservatively in the emergency department (ED). We determined patterns of physical abuse screening in a children's hospital ED for children with ISF.MethodsA retrospective review was performed for children aged 3 years and younger who presented to the ED with ISF from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019. Children were stratified by age (<12 mo, >= 12 mo) and witnessed versus unwitnessed injury. Primary outcome was social work (SW) assessment to prescreen for abuse. Secondary outcomes were suspicion for abuse based on Child Protective Services (CPS) referral and subsequent ED encounters within 1 year.ResultsSixty-six ISF patients were identified. Of unwitnessed injury patients aged younger than 12 months (n = 17/22), 88.2% (n = 15/17) underwent SW assessment and 47.1% (n = 8/17) required CPS referral. Of witnessed injury patients aged younger than 12 months (n = 23/44), 60.9% (n = 14/23) underwent SW assessment, with no CPS referrals. Overall, 18.2% (n = 4/22) unwitnessed and 20.5% (n = 9/44) witnessed injury patients returned to our ED: 2 were aged younger than 12 months and had recurrent trauma.ConclusionsTo decrease risk of missed physical abuse, SW consultation should be considered for all ISF patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据